IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition No.263 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 V.Ravikumar ... Petitioner -Vs.- The District Registrar (Administration) (Assistant Inspector General of Registration Cadre) Coimbtore 18 ... Respondent Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the respondent relating to the impugned order made in Ref. No.Mu. Mu. No.11472/A3/2009, dated 17.12.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. K.Kalyanasundaram For Respondent : Mr. R.Neelakandan Govt. Advocate - - - O R D E R Challenging the order of the respondent, dated 17.12.2009, suspending the licence of the petitioner, who is a document writer, the present writ petition is laid. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is stated here-under:- The petitioner is a registered document writer and obtained licence from the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. He is doing the said profession for the past 18 years without any complaint whatsoever. On 26.12.2006, one Mani, S/o.Palani Gounder, approached him to prepare a power of attorney in respect of a property at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore, of an extent of 3.168 cents. As per his instructions, he has prepared the power of attorney, after collecting a sum of Rs.25/- for preparation charges and Rs.50/- towards computer typing and printing charges. He has handed over the power of attorney to the said Mani. 3. While so, on 14.10.2009, one Malathi, seems to have lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, alleging that the power of attorney has been fabricated and she has not executed the power of attorney in favour of the said Mani. On the basis of the complaint, the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, registered a case against the said Mani in Crime No.78 of 2009 under Sections 467, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. Absolutely there is no allegation against the petitioner in the complaint, but inspite of the same, the Police Authorities, with an ulterior motive, made a search on his residence, which led him to file a petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2009 for an anticipatory bail. This Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail on 26.10.2009. 4. While so, the Inspector of Police, seems to have sent a letter dated 20.10.2009 to the respondent along with the statement received from the petitioner. On the said basis, the respondent issued a show cause notice to him, dated 13.11.2009, alleging that while the Government has fixed only a sum of Rs.25/- for preparation of the power of attorney, he has collected a sum of Rs.75/-, thereby violated the rules of the document writers. A reply was forwarded to the respondent, but, however, the present impugned order was passed suspending his licence. 5. A complaint lodged by the said Malathi against the said Mani, was withdrawn by her and the matter was settled among themselves. In fact, the said Malathi has executed a sale deed in favour of the said Mani. The petitioner therefore has to challenge the order of suspension of his licence, since the said order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, his explanation was not at all considered by the respondent before passing the impugned order. 6. On notice, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it was pointed out that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one K.Malathi, a case was registered in Crime No.78 of 2009 against the said Mani, his wife and son and also against the petitioner, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner seems to have given a statement before the Police Authorities accepting that he has collected Rs.75/- for preparation of the power of attorney. The said statement was forwarded to the respondent, who in turn, has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after getting reply from the petitioner, passed the impugned order, which does not require any interference by this Court. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondent have made their submissions. 8. It is not in dispute that one Malathi has lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, against one Mani, his wife and son, alleging that the said Mani had fabricated a power of attorney, as though she has executed a power of attorney in his favour. On the basis of the said complaint, a case seems to have been registered in Crime No.78 of 2009 under various provisions of the IPC. The petitioner, after coming to know of the complaint, had obtained an anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2009. Further, it seems that the Police Authorities forwarded the statement obtained from the petitioner to the respondent. Basing on the same, a show cause notice, dated 13.11.2009, was caused to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a reply on 11.12.2009 and the impugned order was passed on 17.12.2009. 9. I am inclined to set-aside the impugned order of the respondent for more than one reason. (i)The first reason is that though the petitioner in his reply dated 11.12.2009 denied that he has collected a sum of Rs.75/- of preparation of power of attorney, without dealing with the same, the impugned order was passed mechanically, except saying that the reply of the petitioner is contradictory and nowhere it has been discussed in the impugned order about the explanation that has been offered by the petitioner. (ii)If the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory, the respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry and later the order should have been passed. Any order to be passed by the authorities, which are adverse against an individual, an opportunity should have been given before passing such order. In the given case, admittedly, no enquiry was conducted by the respondent before passing the impugned order. (iii)Even as per Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982, the respondent has got power to suspend the licence only for a period of one month and not beyond that. It will be useful to extract the said rule, which reads as follows:- "16. Suspension and Cancellation of the licence: 1. The District Registrar shall have the power to suspend the (District Licence of Sub District) licence of a document writer in his district for a period not exceeding a month at a time for misconduct or unsatisfactory work." 10. In the case on hand, the impugned order does not say that the licence was suspended for a period of one month, but it says that the licence is suspended till further orders. K.VENKATARAMAN, J., srk 11. In view of the above reasonings, I am inclined to set-aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 17.12.2009 and the writ petition stands allowed. It is needless to say that the respondent is at liberty to pass orders after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and after giving reasons thereof. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. 19.02.2010 srk To The District Registrar (Administration) (Assistant Inspector General of Registration Cadre) Coimbtore 18 W.P.No.263 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010