IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30506 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.M. JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, KAVALAVAZHIKKAL, RAJA ROAD, NEELESWARAM-671 314. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (LICENCING) ATTACHED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P. BHAGEERATHI, D/O. K.V. POOJARI, THAIVALAPPU, CHERUVATHOOR-671 313. 5. KAMALAKSHY, D/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, PLANKU HOUSE, MANCODE, BHEEMANADI, HOSDURG, KASARGODE. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.M.THAMBAN FOR R4 SRI.T.MADHU FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, A/W. W.P.C.NO.17498/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 30506/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.20.5.06. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.9.6.06. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.8.86 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BHEEMANADI. P4. COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.20.8.86. P5. COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD.20.1.93. P6. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.17.12.93. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER BY STATEMENT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 30.10.06. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R3 DTD.27.7.06. P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.22322/06. P10. COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R1 DTD.1.11.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge . S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.30506/2006 & 17498/2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a licensed document writer. His licence has been suspended by Ext.P8 order [in W.P(C).No. 30506/2006] issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Licensing), on allegations of misconduct. The petitioner's appeal against that order was dismissed by Ext.P11 order of the Government. Challenging Exts.P8 and P11 orders, the petitioner filed W.P(C).No. 30506/2006. In that writ petition there was a stay of the order of suspension of his licence. While that writ petition was pending, the period of licence of the petitioner expired. The respondents refused to renew the same in view of the earlier suspension of the petitioner's licence. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P(C).No.17498/2008 seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the petitioner's licence since the suspension has been stayed in the other writ petition. In the said circumstances, both these writ petitions were posted together and heard finally. 2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner's licence has been suspended on very serious allegations of misconduct in helping a party to get a document w.p.c.30506/06 & cc. 2 registered in respect of certain properties belonging to the Government, which was revealed in a vigilance enquiry. According to the learned Government Pleader the petitioner did not exercise due care and caution in preparing the document in so far as the same was done without perusing the basic documents, which resulted in the execution of a bogus document. According to him, under the Kerala Documents Writer's Licensing Rules, it was the duty of the petitioner to exercise due diligence while preparing documents. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is absolutely no ground to suspect the bonafides of the petitioner in the matter because he had only prepared a document in accordance with the instructions given by a client and if the client had committed any mistake or fraud, in so far as the petitioner was not aware of the same, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. He also points out that the vendor and purchaser in the document have been made parties to the writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that having issued a suspension order, that should be followed by a final order regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to continue as a licensee. In view of the fact that w.p.c.30506/06 & cc. 3 it is pursuant to a vigilance enquiry and a direction by the Government that the proceedings have been initiated, it is only appropriate that the Government itself decides that matter finally. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: The Secretary of the Department of Reregistration, Government of Kerala, shall take a final decision pursuant to Ext.P8 order in W.P(C).No. 30506/2006 as to the entitlement of the petitioner to continue as licensee. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till final orders are thus passed, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue his profession as document writer notwithstanding the suspension and non-renewal of the licence. But of course his right to continue the profession shall be subject to the orders to be so passed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30506/06 & cc. 4