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. 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 the departmental instructions. 7. In the said screening process, the cases of the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 were not approved by the Screening Committee and therefore, no order, similar to the order passed in favour of the petitioner no. 1, was passed in their favour. Meaning thereby, no provisional license was issued to them to act as a Deed Writer provisionally in the office of the respondent no. 5. 8. Subsequently by Notice/Order dated 08.08.2022, the respondent no. 5 allowed the petitioner no. 2, who stated himself to be engaged as scribe, to carry out the works of a Deed Writer. The respondent no. 5 also allowed the petitioner no. 3 who stated to have engaged himself as scribe, to assist the operator of the office for data entry, biometrics, scanning, etc. On the same date, that is, 08.08.2022, the respondent no. 2, who stated himself to be engaged as scribe, to carry out the works of a Deed Writer. The respondent no. 5 also allowed the petitioner no. 3 who stated to have engaged himself as scribe, to assist the operator of the office for data entry, biometrics, scanning, etc. On the same date, that is, 08.08.2022, the respondent no. 5 published the two lists, that is, [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, Katigorah to undergo training with a licensed deed writer against their names w.e.f. 08.08.2022. In the first list of licensed deed writers, the name of the petitioner no. 1 figured at Serial no. 33 and in the second list of persons who were temporarily allowed to enter and sit in the office premises of the respondent no. 5 to undergo training with a licensed deed writer, the name of the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 figured at Serial no. 16 and Serial no. 7 respectively. It was on the basis of the second list dated 08.08.2022, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 started to sit in the office premises of the respondent no. 5 to undergo training with a licensed deed writer. On the other hand, the petitioner no. 1 started to sit in the office premises of the respondent no. 5 as a licensed deed writer. 9. A stand is taken on behalf of the respondent authorities to the effect that by the Notice/Order dated 08.08.2022 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 5, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 were only allowed to sit with the licensed deed writers strictly for the training purposes only and the same did not confer any legal right or authority or appointment to act as licensed deed writers. The petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 though appeared in the deed writer recruitment examination conducted by the respondent no. 4, they did not qualify in the said examination and therefore, they have not acquired the qualification to function as licensed deed writers in the office of the respondent no. 5. 10. The Rules for appointment and promotion of the officers of the Registration Department are framed in an Executive Order. 4, they did not qualify in the said examination and therefore, they have not acquired the qualification to function as licensed deed writers in the office of the respondent no. 5. 10. The Rules for appointment and promotion of the officers of the Registration Department are framed in an Executive Order. Order 14 of the said Executive Order is of relevance for the case in hand. As per Rule 14 of the Executive Order, the Registrars shall compile in respect of each Sub-Registrar Office in their district a list of respectable deed or petition writers and only the said deed or petition writers would be allowed access to the compound of the Registration Office for the purpose of writing documents, etc. The numbers of deed writers are to be fixed with reference to the needs of the office and shall be licensed by the Registrars. It is only the licensed deed writers who would be allowed to sit in the office precincts and to enter the Registration Office. Unlicensed deed writers or touts shall not be allowed to enter the premises of the Registrar Office or the office compound [a] except for the purpose of transacting business in connection with the registration of their private documents, or the making of searches or the application for certified copies relating thereto, or [b] unless they hold a power of attorney granted, or a receipt under Section 52 of the Registration Act duly endorsed in their favour by the presentant of a document or other persons desirous of making a search or obtaining a copy. 11. 11. It has been prescribed in the Executive Order that the list of the licensed deed writers is to be hung up in a conspicuous place both at the office and in the compound near the entrance with a warning to the following effect at the foot : ‘Any person whose name is not included in the list of who enters the Sub- Registry Office or the compound of the office [a] except for the purpose of transacting business in connection with the registration of their private documents, or the making of searches or the application for certified copies relating thereto, or [b] unless they hold a power of attorney granted, or a receipt under Section 52 of the Registration Act duly endorsed in their favour by the presentant of a document or other persons desirous of making a search or obtaining a copy, will render himself liable to a prosecution for criminal trespass under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, and for disobedience of a lawful order under Section 188, Indian Penal Code.’ 12. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 are not licensed deed writers. Thus, the Office Order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 is found to be in conformity with the provisions laid down in the Executive Order. Therefore, the assail made to the impugned Office Order dated 07.10.2023 by the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 is found not merited. 13. From the materials on record, it has emerged that after being granted the Deed Writer License on 06.04.2022, the petitioner no. 1 was placed under suspension. Subsequently by an Order dated 08.03.2024, the respondent no. 4 withdrew the Suspension Order passed against the petitioner no. 1 and he was reinstated as a Provisional Deed Writer, thereby, allowing him to write deeds again, provided he abide by the extant registration rules, departmental instructions, etc. Therefore, with his reinstatement on and from 08.03.2024 as a Provisional Deed Writer, the impugned Office Order dated 07.10.2023 would not come in the way for him to enter into the office premises of the respondent no. 5 to carry out his duties as a Provisional Deed Writer strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Executive Order. 14. The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. There shall be no order as to cost.