Raveendradas K.R. v State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAVEENDRADAS K.R. AGED 52 YEARS S/O. K.S RAGHAVAN, DOCUMENT WRITING LICENSEE NO.DAP149 AND SAP 263, KANJIKKAL HOUSE, AGALI P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 581** **BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (LICENSING) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035** - **3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 582** - **4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,. AGALI-678 581** - **5 SUBRAMANIAN.N., MAMANA OORU, JALLIPARA P.O., AGALI-678 581** - **R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT A.C VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a licensed document writer attached to the office of the 4[th] respondent Sub Registrar, Agali, who has been issued with Ext.P1 document writers licence dated 16.10.1998, which is renewed and valid upto 31.05.2023, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 01.11.2019, issued by 3[rd] respondent District Registrar (General) and also Ext.P6 show-cause notice dated 11.07.2020, issued by 2[nd] respondent Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing). The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 2[nd] respondent to provide a copy of the report No.E2-3433/19 dated 02.03.2020, before taking any action in File No.IGR/2198/2020-L1; and a declaration that Ext.P6 show-cause notice dated 11.07.2020, is illegal and issued without any basis under the provisions of the Document Writers License Rules, 1960, and issued without jurisdiction. 2. On 24.09.2020, when this writ petition came up admission, this Court issued notice before admission for respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 3 the 5[th] respondent. It was submitted before this Court that to enable the petitioner to respond to Ext.P6 show-cause notice, he had sought for a copy of the enquiry report, on which it is based. However the 3[rd] respondent District Registrar (General) refused to supply a copy of that report. Having regarded to the facts and circumstances, this Court granted an interim order, that action, if any, proposed to be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 show-cause notice, would be deferred for a period of three weeks. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that a copy of the report, based on which Ext.P6 showcause notice has been issued to the petitioner, has already been furnished to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is already in receipt of a copy of that report. 5. The main challenge made in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 show-cause notice. 6. In **State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2** W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 4 **SCC 179]** the Apex Court held that, when the show cause notice was issued under a statutory provision calling upon to show cause, the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing and once cause is shown it is open to the authority to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submission placed before it and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Therefore, interference by the Court before that would be premature. 7. In **Seimens Ltd v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 12 SCC 33]** the Apex Court held that ordinarily, a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition questioning a notice to show-cause unless the notice appears to have been without jurisdiction. ## 8. In **Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories [(2007) 13** **SCC 270]** the Apex Court held that, normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 5 of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly, in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. The mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out. 9. In the case on hand, the authority of the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing) to issue a show-cause notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Document Writers License Rules, 1960, is not in dispute. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, on the grounds raised in this writ petition, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 6 warranted on Ext.P6 show-cause notice dated 11.07.2020. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to submit his explanation to Ext.P6 show-cause notice, within a reasonable time and thereafter, the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing) has to take an appropriate decision in the matter. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is not keeping well, he requires some time to submit reply to Ext.P6 show-cause notice. 11. The learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent would submit that further proceedings in Ext.P6 show-cause notice may be with notice to the said respondent as well. 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The petitioner shall submit his reply to Ext.P6 showcause notice issued by the 2[nd] respondent Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent shall conduct a personal hearing with notice to the petitioner and also to W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 7 the 5[th] respondent and take an appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to raise all such contentions before the 2[nd] respondent at appropriate stage. 14. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 15. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 8 relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WRITERS LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA DOCUMENT WRITERS LICENSE RULES,1960** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-3433/19 DTD 01.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE FOREST DIVISIONAL SURVEYOR (RETD) SUBMITTED BY THE TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE OF THE SALE DEED** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE AGALI VILLAGE OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN SY NO1746 AND REGISTERED VIDE THE DISPUTED SALE DEED NO.755/I/19** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 11.07.2020** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 NIL** - **EXHIBIT P8A TRUE COPY OF THE NON-LEGIBLE COPY OF COMPLAINT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DURING INVESTIGATION** - **EXHIBIT P8B TRUE COPY OF THE TYPED COPY OF COMPLAINT** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 24.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, REQUESTING THE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.E12-3433/19 DTD 02.03.2020 FOR SUBMITTING A DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THE FINDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE ENQUIRY REPORT** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 24.08.2020 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING** W.P.(C) No.19854 OF 2020(F) 10 **ONE MOTH TIME FORM 24.08.2020 FOR SUBMITTING REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 11.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REFUSING THE INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.E2-3433/19 DTD 02.03.2020 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 14.02.2014 IN WPC 4521/2014**