By the Court.—Heard Dr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners who are Licensed Document Writers duly authorised to draft documents under the U.P. Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the ratio of grant of licence to the eligible persons has to be maintained as per the number specified in Rule-3 of the U.P. Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977, which has been violated as a result whereof the same has disadvantageously affected the petitioners in their earnings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a clear statutory violation and thus the licences granted in excess of the number as provided for under Rule 3 deserves to be cancelled.

3. To substantiate his submission learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the number of licensees have to be fixed as per the ratio of the documents presented for registration in the previous year in the office concerned. Learned counsel submits that the calculation on the basis of Rule-3 about document registered in the preceding year is not correct then in such circumstances any grant of license to persons over and above the said number deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to urge that according to the case set up by the respondents themselves the figures clearly indicate viz-a-viz the definition of the term documents defined in Rule- 3 that the number of licenses now granted is in excess of the said ratio. The total number of documents as reflected by the respondents themselves, therefore, based on an erroneous calculation of including other documents than those registered, and secondly on account of the ratio having been disturbed, the direction as prayed for deserves to be issued.

5. The third argument of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent themselves had admitted in a previous W.P. No. 2298 of 1998 that moving of other applications is not apart of the job of Document Writers and in such circumstances calculation of miscellaneous applications and other documents for the purpose of Rule 3 is totally misplaced. It is urged that in paragraph 11 of the said counter-affidavit a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure R.A-1, the admission of the respondents clearly supports the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Replying to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 2 (b) to contend that the word document means all documents inclusive of such applications as referred to therein. He, therefore, submits that the calculation given in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit including such applications does not suffer from any factual infirmity in order to give any cause of action to the petitioner vis-a-vis the ratio of the number of Document Deed Writers licensed in the office of Sub Registrar.

7. It is further submitted that after due consideration the representation of the petitioner was disposed of and a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the counter-affidavit.

8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and having perused Rules as well as the documents on record what we find is that the case requires an interpretation with regard to the reference to Rule 3 read with Rule 2(b) of the 1977 rules that are extracted hereinunder :

3. Number of document writers.—The Licensing Authority shall, from time to time, fix the number of document writers for each registration office in the district, in consultation with the Sub Registrar concerned but the number of such document writers shall not exceed 3 for every, 1,000 documents presented for registration in the previous year in the office concerned. If, at any time, the Licensing Authority finds that the number of document writers in any office is in excess of the number so fixed, it shall reduce their number by c