IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28294 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.JAYALAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.NAKULAN, VALIYAVILAKOM VAKKAM TRIVANDRUM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADVOCATE CLERK,NO.3, ANCHORAGE, PALLIYIL LANE, FORESHORE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682016. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM (THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF PLEADERS' CLERK). SR GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28294 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF IDENTITY CARD NO.335/2002 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SS.17098/10 DATED 31-3-2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).28294/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is an Advocate Clerk by profession. He had originally obtained registration card under the Pleader's Clerk's Rules from the second respondent. The period of the card expired in the year 2007. According to the petitioner, he shifted his work to Ernakulam as a result of which, he could not apply for renewal of the card. Subsequently, he made an application for renewal which was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P2 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A reading of Ext.P2 order shows that the reason for rejection is that the petitioner had not produced the registration card for verification and that his card had already expired in 2007. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original card could not be surrendered for the reason that it was misplaced, no such averment was made by the petitioner in the application filed before the District Judge, a copy of which was made available by the learned counsel. In such circumstances the explanation now offered by the petitioner that the original certificate was misplaced, cannot be accepted. In any W.P.(C).28294/11 2 case, Rule 7(2) of the Pleader's Clerk's Rules require that the card shall be forwarded to the District Judge for renewal within the time specified therein. Therefore, in the absence of having produced the registration card, the application made by the petitioner was defective. 3. Further, validity of the registration card had expired in 2007 and was not renewed. Question of renewal of a registration card arises only if the registration remains valid as on date of the application for renewal. In this case, since the validity of the card has already expired in 2007, petitioner could not have sought renewal of the card. Further the Rule also does not enable the District Judge to condone the delay in making the application for renewal of the registration. 4. In such circumstances, the view taken by the District Judge cannot be said to be illegal and the option available to the petitioner is only to apply for fresh registration. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs