1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE:10-03-2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.2777 of 2011 S.Angappan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub-Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the registered sale deed dated 08.04.2002 in document No.4118/2002 to the petitioner. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Mani For R.1 & 2 :: Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the registered sale deed dated 08.04.2002 in document No.4118/2002 to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.47,227/- to release the document in question by an order dated 08.04.2005. 2. It is very unfortunate that such Writ Petition is being filed. The petitioner who has registered the documents with the registration authority was served with notice under “Samadhan Scheme” to pay the additional stamp duty. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 08.04.2005 seeking the release of the documents in question. It is pertinent to point out here that the document was registered in the year 2002. Thereafter, under the “Samadhan Scheme”, the order was served on 08.04.2005 to pay the additional stamp duty. 3. In the order itself, it is very clearly stated that the time limit to comply the order was upto 30.04.2005. But the petitioner has kept quite without any rhyme or reason so far. Added to that, neither he complied with the order of the respondents dated 08.04.2005 nor sought for return of the documents since 2005. Now, after a gap of nine years, he sent a representation on 02.02.2011, to the original authority, namely, the Sub-Registrar concerned seeking him for return of the original documents without making the payment of the additional stamp duty even as fixed under the “Samadhan Scheme”. Thereafter, he has come forward with a Writ of Mandamus seeking for the return of the documents. This Court does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition. This is nothing but a frivolous petition. After nine years, he has come forward with a Writ Petition for consideration of the alleged representations sent by him, besides for a Mandamus to return the documents in question without making the necessary payments to the respondents. 4. In this connection, it is worthwhile to mention a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was also a party. In the said judgment, we have culled out when Mandamus to be given and on what occasions the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations leads to drastic consequences. Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:- “19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous peti- tioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illus- trate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or un- tenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation ap- proaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the au- thority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judi- cial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and con- sequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving re- lief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 5. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of this Court, in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, had in para 8 observed:- “.... 8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". 6. In view of the decisions cited supra and also in view of the fact that since the petitioner neither complied with the order under the “Samadhan Scheme” or preferred appeal in time, mere representation seeking for return of the documents, is not maintainable and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ssm To 1.The Sub-Registrar, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 6250: DM:2011::APRIL:05::: W.P.(MD).No.2777 of 2011 10-03-2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/