Administrative bodies may lawfully restrict access to official premises to licensed professionals in accordance with established executive regulations. Unlicensed individuals possess no enforceable legal right to occupy or perform tasks within such administrative workspaces, and regulatory restrictions on their entry do not violate fundamental legal entitlements.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management [Registration] Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by three petitioners stating that they have a common cause of action to espouse.

3. Assail is made to an Office Order dated 07.10.2023 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 5, that is, the Sub-Registrar, Katigorah, District - Cachar, Assam whereby it was ordered that only the licensed deed writers of the said office would be allowed to be present in the office premises and no other persons including scribes would be allowed to be present in the office premises of the respondent no. 5. By the Office Order dated 07.10.2023, a list containing 41 nos. of licensed deed writers was published wherein the names of the petitioners did not figure.

4. The case projected by the petitioners is that the petitioners engaged themselves as deed writers in the office of the respondent no. 5 and they had been doing the tasks of deed writers in the said office for many years. It is stated that on 08.08.2022, the respondent no. 5 published two lists, [i] a list of licensed deed writers under Katigorah Sub-Registrar Office and [ii] a list of persons who were temporarily allowed to enter and sit in the office premises of the Sub-Registrar Office, Katigorah to undergo training with a licensed deed writers against their names w.e.f. 08.08.2022. It is the further case of the petitioners that though during the subsequent period till the impugned Office Order dated 07.10.2023, the petitioners were allowed to work inside the office premises of the respondent no. 5, but on and from 07.10.2023, that is, from the date of the impugned Office Order, the petitioners were not allowed to enter the office premises of the respondent no. 5. The writ petition is preferred on the premise that the action taken after the impugned Office Order dated 07.10.2023 brought adverse consequences to the livelihoods of the petitioners.

5. From the materials on record, it has emerged that in the year 2022, the respondent no. 4 initiated a process for licensing deed writers and for the said purpose, notices were issued to the interested applicants on 29.01.2022 to appear in an interview for issuing provisional deed writer licenses. By the Notice dated 29.01.2022, the noticees were informed that the interview for issuing Provisional Deed Writer License was scheduled on 07.02.2022 and they were to appear before a Screening Committee at the time, date and venue mentioned therein along with original certificates in support of age, education qualifications, experience and other testimonials.

6. As the three petitioners had received the Notice dated 29.01.2022, all of them appeared before the Screening Committee on the scheduled date, 07.02.2022. After the process was complete, it was only the petitioner no. 1 who, by an Order dated 06.04.2022 of the respondent no. 4, was allowed to act as a Deed Writer provisionally in the office of the respondent no. 5. In the Order dated 06.04.2022, it was mentioned that the petitioner no. 1 had been allowed to act as a Deed Writer provisionally on being approved by the Screening Committee but the order would be subject to police verification and on the condition that the petitioner no. 1 should have to abide by the extant rules, regulations and