IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15557 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- E. PRADEEP, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, DOCUMENT WRITER, RESIDING AT 'VISHNUMAYA', NEAR ARANGETTUPARAMBA U.P. SCHOOL, ERANHOLI P.O., PIN-670 103, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION (LICENSING), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A.ASIF FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15557/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WRITER'S LICENSE BEARING NO.DAR-108 FY. 4.11.98 ISSUED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE SCRIBE LICENSE BEARING NO.SAR-196 DT. 4.11.98 ISSUED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.L1-11855/08 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 10.5.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P3(A):- COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.L1-11855/08 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 16.5.08 MARKED TO THE PETITIONER P4- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 3.5.07 IN NO.E 378/06 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NORTH ZONE KOZHIKODE ADDRESSED TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY KAMALABAI DORAIRAJ IN OS. 212/04, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY. P6:- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNY EXECUTED BY ONE MOHAMMED IQBAL DT. 12.6.04. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E 13(VE.18/05 KNR) 26153/05 DT. SEPTEMBER 2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. P8:- COPY OF THE RELEANT PAGES OF THE NOTARIAL REGISTER OF SRI.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, NOTARY PUBLIC THALASSERY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E.13(VE 18/05 KNR) 26153/2005 FROM THE DIRECTOR, VACB, ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JDUGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15557 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Scribe and a Document writer. Exhibits P1 and P2 are the Document writer's licence and the Scribe licence respectively. By Exhibit P3(a) dated 16/05/2008, the first respondent suspended petitioner's licences. A reading of Exhibit P3(a) shows that the said order was passed, acting upon the directions as contained in letter dated 6/05/2008 issued by the Government, which in turn, was on the basis of Exhibit P7, report submitted by the second respondent. 2. Exhibit P7 report shows that, on enquiry, the second respondent found that a Power of Attorney was falsely created in favour of one Anoop, who is the clerk of the petitioner, and that an unidentified person was introduced by the petitioner before the Notary Public as the executor of the Power of Attorney. It is stated that on the strength of the Power of Attorney, 4.8 cents of land owned by one P.M. Iqubal was transferred to one Sirajudeen vide document no. 1213/1/04, Registered Deed dated 14/06/2004. W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008 2 3. Another finding in Exhibit P7 report is that a Power of Attorney was created in favour of one Assu, where also an unidentified person was presented before the Notary Public , who was allegedly introduced by the petitioner. It is stated that on the strength of the Power of Attorney, Transfer Deed No. 4157/2004 was registered on 20/12/2004. Yet another finding is that one Kamalabai had transferred to her son 15.35 cents of land vide document no.2396/2001 and that impersonating as Kamalabai, some unidentified persons, registered documents transferring a portion of the 15.35 cents in favour of the petitioner and the balance in favour of others. The involvement of the petitioner in creating bogus documents is also seen recommended to the police for registration of criminal case for impersonation and for cheating others. 4. Thus it was on the basis of Exhibit P7 that by Exhibit P3(a) licences of the petitioner were eventually suspended without specifying any period. Although, several contentions have been raised by the Petitioner to impugne the validity of Exhibit P3(a), including the incorrectness of the factual findings in Exhibit P7 Report and that even if the allegations in W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008 3 Exhibit P7 are taken at its face value, they do not call for any action under Kerala Document Writers Rules, 1960, I feel that pronouncement of those contentions may not be necessary in this proceedings. This is for the reason that Exhibit P3(a) was not preceded by a show cause notice nor was it passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Going on by the provisions contained in Kerala Document Writers Rules,1960, I am inclined to think that suspensions, by itself is a punishment, in as much as, three suspensions suffered by a licencee during a period of two years will render himself liable for the cancellation of his licence in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules. Therefore, the suspension could not have been validly imposed without issuing a show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent licencee. 6. Learned Government Pleader contended that since suspension was in pursuance to Exhibit P7 report and as the report was submitted by the second respondent after questioning the Petitioner, there is no warrant for a second opportunity, when consequential action is taken by the first respondent. I am W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008 4 not in a position to agree with this submission. Admittedly, the disciplinary authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned is the first respondent. If the first respondent has to act on a report submitted to him by any other authority, natural justice requires that the petitioner should be heard before any such action is taken. In such a case alone, will the petitioner get an opportunity to contend before the first respondent, that the findings in the enquiry report are factually incorrect. 7. In this particular case it is the specific case of the petitioner that he did not introduce anybody before the Notary Public contrary to what is reported in Exhibit P7, the Vigilance Report. In fact Petitioner himself has produced copy of the Notarial Register as Exhibit P5 in support of his contentions. If he had been given an opportunity, the petitioner could have produced it before the first respondent and contended that the finding in Exhibit P7 are incorrect. Since, such an opportunity was not extended, in my view, Exhibit P3(a) is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Therefore, for the reason that natural justice has been violated, I set aside Exhibit P3(a) order, leaving it open to the W.P.(C) No.15557 /2008 5 first respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner as is permissible in law, but however only after issuing Show Cause Notice and giving him an opportunity to be heard. 9. It is clarified that I have not considered the other contentions raised by both sides, and it is for the first respondent to deal with those contentions. 10. Proceedings shall be initiated as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment and shall be concluded without any, for the reason that if there is any truth in the allegation, public interest requires that necessary action should be taken. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm