IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 13733 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MR. VIJAYAN, AGED 48, S/O. LATE SHRI. MADHAVAN NAIR LICENSEE NO.D.B.P.162 S.B.P.251 SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE, KOZHINJAMPARA SREE VALSAM, EAST FORT, PALAKKAD-1. BY ADV. MR. T . K. RADHAKRISHNAN MS. K.L.SREEDEVI MR. L.P.ARAVINDHAKSHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (TAXES E DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M. R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 13733 OF 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.02.2004 NO. L1-29119/04 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2004 EXT. P3 :TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.03.2004 EXT. P4 :TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 9088/04 DATED 22.03.2004 EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 13733 of 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th September , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a document writer is stated as aggrieved of Exts. P1 and P5 orders passed by the original and appellate authority, whereby the licence issued to the petitioner as a 'document writer' has been suspended, alleging violation of Rule 13 (a) (g) and (h) of the Document Writers' Licensing Rules, 1960. 2. The insinuating circumstance stated against the petitioner is that, he was very much an instrumental, as a document writer, in causing execution and registration of a Sale Deed covering about 200 acres in favour of the vendee, whose name has been given as M/s Kerala Health Care Private Limited, showing much lesser value in the document, whereby huge loss was occurred to the State / Revenue. It is also brought out on record that a vigilance case was registered against the petitioner and others, in respect of the offence involved. As per Ext. P1, the second respondent / licensing authority suspended the licence of the petitioner for a period of six months for the aforesaid reason. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2 explanation and thereafter W.P. (C) No. 13733 of 2004 : 2 : approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9088 of 2004, which was disposed of as per Ext. P4 judgment, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal under the Kerala Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1960. Pursuant to the above verdict, the petitioner preferred the appeal, before the first respondent, which was rejected as per Ext. P5 order, which made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging Exts. P1 and P2. 3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit, seeking to sustain the stand taken by the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner was heard before passing Ext. P5 order dismissing his appeal. True, there was no direction in Ext. P4 judgment to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while relegating him to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal. At the same time, it has to be noted that Ext. P4 was not a mere direction to consider same or other representation preferred by the petitioner, which does not have any statutory backing. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner was a statutory appeal under Rule 31 (2) of Kerala Document Writers' Licensing Rules 1960, the first W.P. (C) No. 13733 of 2004 : 3 : respondent appellate authority who was discharging the functions as quasi judicial authority, ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the finalization of the proceedings. Going by the admitted facts, it is evident that the said course had not been pursued. In the said circumstances, this Court does not require any second thought to set aside the impugned proceedings (Exts. P1 and P5) and it is ordered accordingly. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the Appeal, of course after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law. Taking note of the long pendency of the matter, the first respondent shall finalize the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd