IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3666 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------------ RUGMINI.V.S,W/O.GOPALAN, AGED 45 YRS, VENATTUPARAMBIL, PERUMMANNOOR.P.O,CHALISSERY(VIA), OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL,DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (LICENSING), OFFICE OF THKE INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATION), VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIST.REGISTRAR,DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE DIST.REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, THRITHALA. 6. MANIKANDAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, THRITHALA. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3666 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the District Secretary of All Kerala Document Writers and Scribes Association, Palakkad Branch. She is a licenced document writer and scribe. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner mainly challenges Exhibit P9 order passed by the 3rd respondent, suspending licence of the petitioner for six months. 3. Facts of the case are that Exhibit P1 is a complaint made by the petitioner against the 6th respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued Exhibit P2, a notice stating that complaints were received in respect of certain documents executed by her in the year 2005. She was asked to appear before the 4th respondent on 9th October, 2008. It is stated that she appeared and Exhibit P3 is the detailed explanation that was given denying the allegations in Exhibit P2. However, the matter ended with Exhibit P6, by which a warning was imposed on the W.P.(C) No.3666 /2009 2 petitioner. 4. Petitioner submits that subsequent to that, she was summoned by the 4th respondent in connection with an enquiry that was initiated in pursuance to Exhibit P1. Petitioner states that she had applied for a copy of the depositions vide Exhibit P7, but however the same was rejected by Exhibit P8. Immediately thereafter, by Exhibit P9 order issued by the 3rd respondent, petitioner’s licence was suspended for six months. 5. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, reason stated for Exhibit P9 suspension order is that during the course of the enquiry, the petitioner had misbehaved in the office of the 5th respondent and therefore, invited the penalty provided under Section 29(v) of the Kerala Document Writers License Rules, 1960. 6. Thus, from Exhibit P9 and in the light of counter affidavit filed, it can be seen that it was on the allegation of a misconduct, that the petitioner’s licence was suspended invoking Rule 29(v) of the Rules. Even the respondents have no case that before passing the suspension order, any show cause notice was W.P.(C) No.3666 /2009 3 issued to the petitioner. Show cause notice is essential for the reason that the suspension is in the nature of a punishment, in as much as three suspensions will result in the cancellation of the licence itself. Therefore, in the absence of show cause notice and affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain the case against him, natural justice is violated. 7. In view of above, I direct that Exhibit P9 issued by the 3rd respondent be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner be given an opportunity to file her explanation to the allegation of misconduct. Taking into account the above, it is directed that within 10 days from today the petitioner shall file her reply to Exhibit P9, in which case, within 4 weeks of receipt of the reply, the 3rd respondent shall consider Exhibit P9 in the light of reply and other materials produced, with notice to the petitioner and pass final orders in the matter. I direct that in the meantime, status quo as on date will be maintained by the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case of both parties and it is entirely for the respondents to deal with the W.P.(C) No.3666 /2009 4 matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm