Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.03.2021, as contained in Memo dated 26.03.2021, passed by the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, as also for quashing the order dated 27.05.2017, passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby and whereunder the Deed Writer’s license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner had chosen the profession of Deed Writer and subsequently, he was issued a license bearing License No.03 of 2002, by the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working to the satisfaction of all concerned and there was no complaint from any corner, however, an enquiry is stated to have been conducted by the District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereupon it transpired that loss to the tune of Rs.32,70,000/- has been caused to the State Exchequer on account of incorrect registration of 58 documents in connivance with the Deed Writers, including the petitioner herein and stamp vendors. It is further submitted that an F.I.R. bearing Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 184 of 2016, dated 29.09.2016, was lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the purchasers and others, however, upon investigation, the police found the case to be true only against the purchasers and five unknown persons, named therein, however, nothing was found against the petitioner and he was absolved of the alleged charges levelled in the F.I.R. Nonetheless, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.03.2017, asking the petitioner to submit his reply as to why his license be not cancelled, whereafter the petitioner had filed his objections/reply and then the District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, by an order dated 27.05.2017 had cancelled the Deed Writer’s License of the petitioner with immediate effect.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that finding the aforesaid order dated 27.05.2017, to have been passed without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the license can only be cancelled by the Licensing Authority, i.e. the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, as per Rule 2(g) of the Bihar Deed Writer’s Licensing Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1996’), the petitioner had challenged the same by filing an appeal, bearing Appeal Case No.02 of 2017, before the Inspector General, Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna, who, accepting the aforesaid argument of the petitioner, had allowed the appeal by an order dated 22.08.2019, and set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2017, passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereafter the matter was remanded back to the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, for passing a speaking order considering the provisions contained in the Rules, 1996.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Collector-cum-District Registrar, Rohtas at Sasaram, by the impugned order dated 20.03.2021, has rejected the show cause reply, filed by the petitioner and revived the aforesaid order dated 27.05.2017, cancelling the Deed Writer’s license of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that first of all, none of the points raised in the show cause reply, filed by the petitioner, has been considered. It is next contended that though the petitioner had stated in his show cause reply that he has been absolved of criminal liability in the aforesaid Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 184 of 2016, meaning thereby that he had no role to play in misappropriation of Government’s money to the tune of Rs.32,70,000/-, but still the said aspect of the matter has not been considered. Thus, it is submitted that there is no ground to cancel the Deed Writer’s license of the petitioner.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to R