Sudhakar S v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and W.M.P.(MD).No.17864 of 2021 S.Sudhakar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-28.

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Peravurani, Thanjavur District.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.316/m4/2021, dated 13.08.2021, by the second respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader.

ORDER

Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

2. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari, calling in question, an order dated 13.08.2021 of the second respondent herein, whereby, licence of the petitioner as a Document Writer had been cancelled.

3. Let me not enter into a detailed discussion on the facts of the case. But it is seen that the petitioner is also now an accused in a First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2020, which had been registered for alleged offences under Section 102 of Cr.P.C read with Section 7, 7-A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption 1/3

(Amendment Act) 2018. The offence is stated to have occurred on 05.03.2020. The petitioner is also shown as the second accused and the then Sub Registrar of Peravurani, Thanjavur District has been shown as the first accused.

4. The petitioner has been a Document Writer with licence and was carrying on business in the Sub Registrar office at Peravurani. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner had given an elaborate explanation but the same had not been considered by the second respondent prior to the passing of the impugned order. The explanation given by the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the amount which had been seized is accountable and to be used for registration purposes only and not to be used as bribe to be given to the Sub Registrar.

5. Let me not disturb the conclusion raised by the second respondent. Let the second respondent however re-examine the representation given by the petitioner and pass a further detailed order with respect to the explanation given by the petitioner as to the presence of the cash in his office and seized from him. The said exercise shall be done by the second respondent once again within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (As) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Lm Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-28.

2/3

2.The District Registrar (Administration), Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Peravurani, Thanjavur District.

+1 CC to M/s.S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate( SR-1241[F] dated 11/01/2022 ) 11.01.2022 MGJ(01.02.2022) 3P 5C 3/3