WP 1415-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2009 V.S.Dandale & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.Dhond i/b. Prakash & Co. for petitioners Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P. For respondents CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Date : 7th July 2010. P.C. 1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the circular dated 30th March 2009 (Exh.I-1) issued by the Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps (hereinafter for short “IG Stamps”). 2] Earlier by circular dated 3rd March 2008, the IG Stamps had WP 1415-09 2 issued certain directions which are to be followed by the Sub- registrars of Assurances while exercising their powers under section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908. 3] It was pointed out in the said circular that various cases of fraud were coming to light wherein person who was coming for registration on the basis that he is a power of attorney holder was entertained without proper verification and submission of necessary documents. By the said circular dated 3rd March 2008, the IG Stamps clarified that in the case of documents coming for registration, Sub-Registrar has to carry out verification of multiple things and the issues which are required to be looked into by the Sub-Registrar are pointed out in the said circular. The petitioners had earlier moved this court by filing Writ Petition No.1941 of 2008 challenging the said circular dated 3rd March 2008. When the said petition reached hearing, another Division Bench of this Court observed that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the problems referred by the petitioners, who were working as Sub-Registrars in different parts of Mumbai, the learned Counsel for the State stated that the petition would be treated as their representation, by examining the same in accordance with law and appropriate orders/ guidelines shall be WP 1415-09 3 issued within a period of six weeks from that date. On these terms the said petition was disposed of. 4] Pursuant to the above directions, the IG Stamps has issued the impugned letter dated 30th March 2009. While expressing the view that the circular dated 3rd March 2008 is consistent with the Registration Act and the same has been issued in wider public interest and, therefore, it is not necessary to withdraw the same, it is also mentioned that it was proposed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department to request Home Department to give instructions to the police officers that an employee may not be deemed to have committed criminal offence merely because there may be some administrative irregularities. This was done by the communication dated 23rd June 2003 (Exh.B-1). The said instructions contained in the letter dated 23rd June 2003 further provide that while discharging official duty by any Government employee, if any dereliction (default) on his part is found, then before taking any criminal action against him, it is necessary to obtain prior permission of the competent authority under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The instructions further provide that the police officers may not only take relevant provisions into account in connection with the complaint received WP 1415-09 4 by the department in respect of registration of instrument in the office of Sub-Registrar, but unless the Collector and the Dist. Registrar/ Deputy Inspector General of Registration/ Joint Dist. Registrars are consulted, they should not take further action. 5] In spite of the above clarifications contained in the said letter dated 30th March 2009, (Exh.I-1) and the instructions dated 23rd June 2003 to the Police Department, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Registrars apprehend that action may be taken against them even if they follow the legal provisions. It is further submitted that holding detailed enquiries as required by the circular dated 3rd March 2008, will slow down the work relating to registration of documents and the Sub-Registrars would not be able to achieve daily targets fixed. 6] Having heard the learned Counsel for parties, we find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is misconceived. The circular dated 3rd March 2008 only cautions the Sub-Registrars to make necessary enquiries to ensure that fraud is not practised in the matter of Registration of documents. Requiring the Sub- Registrars to exercise due care and caution in order to obviate such frauds, cannot be said to be requiring Sub-Registrars to go beyond WP 1415-09 5 the legal provisions. We are, therefore, of the view that this petition at the instance of the Sub-Registrars of Documents is not required to be entertained. 7] We clarify that in case any departmental enquiry or prosecution is launched against any of the officers, it would be open to them to raise all defences available in law, including the submissions sought to be made in this petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)