h't' I 39/40/s1$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 6663120rr MANJU KHANNA ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kawrani, Adv. Versus SUB REGISTRAR AND ANR ""' Respondents Through: Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Adv. for Mr' N' Waziri. Adv. for GNCTD' AND a + w.P.(c) 666412011 tMANJUAGGARWAL....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kawrani, Adv. Versus SUB REGISTRAR AND ANR ""' Respondents Through: Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Adv. for Mr. N' Waziri. Adv. for GNCTD. AND w.P.(c) 668tt20rr KAMAL KATYAL ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kawrani, Adv' Versus t"i SUB-REGISTRAR AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Adv' for Mr' N' Waziri. Adv. for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW % ORDER 14.09.20t1 1. The grievance of all the petitioners is that the documents presented by them for registration to the respondent No.1 Sub-Registrar, Sub-District-Vl- C, Rohini, Delhi as far back as in the year 2007 have not been returned with the endorsement of registration inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners rely upon the counter affidavit filed in w.P.(c) No.1062/2011 filed by one Smt. Sarika with similar grievance. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that an inspection of the office of the Sub- Registrar concerned was conducted on 08.08.2007 and disciplinary proceedings contemplated and the Sub-Registrar placed under suspension; the documents submitted for registration are subject matter of the said proceedings against the then Sub-Registrar and as such could not be released. 3. The refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register the documents within the prescribed time, under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 is appealable before the Registrar. The Registrar besides being the Appellate Authority is also the Administrative Head of the Sub-Registrars. It has as such been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to how the present petitions are maintainable in the face of the availability of alternative remedy. I I I 2/4 t 4. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had in fact approached the Divisional Commissioner who also exercises the powers of the Registrar. However, the representation was addressed to the Divisional Commissioner and not in his capacity as the Registrar of Assurance. I have in judgment dated 9ft September, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.659212011 titled Sheo Murti Sltuklo Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) dealt with the subject in detail and held such petitions to be not maintainable for the reason of effi cacious alternative remedy available. 5. On enquiry, it is informed that w.P.(c) No.106212011 is listed next on 30.11.2011. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, need is not felt to issue formal notice of these petitions or to call for a counter affidavit. The petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Subject to the petitioners approaching the Registrar of Assurance within one week of today, the Registrar of Assurance is directed to enquire into the matter and if does not find any impediment in law to the registration / release of the documents, to have the same registered / released on or before 31.10.2011. Else, to on or before 15.11-2011pass a speaking over giving reasons for non registration / non release of the said documents; t 3/4 a t il\-/ / t/ (iD Though W.P.(C) No.I062l201l is not before this Bench today but the directions aforesaid to apply to the said writ petition also and the order passed today be placed before this Court on 30.11 .201r. (iii) If the directions are not so complied, the Registrar of Assurance to remain present before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1062/2011 on 30.11.2071 to explain the reasons for non compliance. Dastiunder signature of the Court Master with additional copy. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER l4,20ll 'gsr' +! I 4/4