IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 21165 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.BABY DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) (RETIRED) RESIDING AT “KALATHIL”, KODUNGALLOOR 680 664 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION KERALA, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) THRISSUR. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRIPRAYAR VALAPPAD P.O, THRISSUR. 6. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R1 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.21165 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of Order No.E2.21373/07 dated 14.2.2008 of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2: True copy of Gratuity Payment Order dated 23.2.2008 issued by the Accountant General. Ext.P3: True copy of Letter dated 24.9.2008 of the 5th respondent with the Liability Certificate. Ext.P4: True copy of Letter No.E2-2277/07 dt. 6.4.09 of the 3rd respondent to 2nd respondent with the Liability Certificate. Ext.P5: True copy of Letter No.E2-21373/07 dt. 30.4.09 of the 2nd respondent to the Sub Treasury Officer. Ext.P6: True copy of representation dt. 16.5.09 to respondents 1 & 2 (wrongly dated as 30.4.2009). Ext.P7: Relevant pages of Register of Daily Registration (Account A) mentained in SRO Thripprayar. Ext.P8: Photo copy of Letter No.17422/03/G5(2) dt. 8.1.2004 of the Director, Printing & Stationery with the endorsements communicated to the petitioner. Ext.P8(a): Copy of two pages of Notification relating to Nattika and Valappad Villages coming within the jurisdiction of Thriprayar SRO. Ext.P9: True copy of Letter dt. 9.7.2008 of 6th respondent with relevant portion of audit report. Ext.P10: True copy of Explanation dt. 4.9.2008 of the petitioner. Ext.P11: True copy of Sale Deed No.1741 dt. 1.7.2005. Ext.P12: True copy of Rectification Deed No.2411 dated 16.8.2005. Ext.P13: True copy of Proceedings dt.5.4.82 of Board of Revenue permitting rectification of clerical mistake in Sale Deed No.1641/80 of SRO Makkaraparamba. Ext.P14: True copy of Proceedings dt. 7.5.82 sanctioning change of name of claimant in Sale Deed No.489/80 of SRO Edappally. Ext.P15: True copy of Letter dated 27.3.2009 of the 6th respondent to the 4th respondent. Ext.P16: True copy of representation dt. 16.5.2009 of the petitioner to the 6th respondent (wrongly dated as 30.4.09). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 21165 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the Registration Department. On 30.11.2007, he retired from its service while working as District Registrar (General), Ernakulam. Subsequent to his retirement, his retiral benefits except DCRG, were sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2. The DCRG was not sanctioned and paid to the petitioner on account of the liabilities fixed against him as per Exts.P3 and P4. It is obvious from Ext.P4 that his liability was fixed on two counts. Firstly, based on the objections from the Local Audit Report for the year 2005-06, a liability to the tune of Rs. 24,000/- has been fixed against the petitioner. Secondly, a liability was fixed on the allegations that the petitioner had registered certain documents without taking into account the prevailing fair value fixed for the period from 5.1.04 to 18.2.04, based on Ext.P8 notification dated 5.1.04. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the fixation of liability on the first ground viz., fixation of liability to the tune of Rs.24,000/- was dropped as is evident from Exts.17 and 18. Ext.P18 is the revised liability certificate issued to the petitioner and the same would reveal W.P.(C) NO.21165 of 2009 2 that subsequently he was absolved of the said liability. Therefore, what remains is only the liability fixed on the second ground i.e., the liability fixed based on the registration of the documents ignoring the Ext.P8 notification. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that copies of Ext.P8 notification was communicated to the office of the petitioner while he was working at Sub Registrar's Office, Thripunithura only on 19.1.04. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he has registered all the documents referred to in Ext.P3, viz., alleged to have been registered ignoring Ext.P8 notification during the period from 5.1.04 to 19.1.04. These contentions were not refuted in the counter affidavit. Therefore, it is contended in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.36206 of 2008, the petitioner cannot be held liable on the second ground cited in Ext.P4. The said judgment was passed relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in R.K.V Motors & Timbers (P) Ltd. Vs. R.T.O reported in 1982 KLT 166. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment no liability could have been fastened on the petitioner on the ground of registration of documents without adhering to Ext.P8 notification. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the judgment dated 16.4.2009 in W.P.(C).No.36206 of 2008. As noticed hereinbefore, the case of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 notification dated 5.1.04 was received in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thripunithura only on 19.1.04 at 11.45 AM by post and all the 48 documents referred to in Ext.P3 were registered by the W.P.(C) NO.21165 of 2009 3 petitioner prior to the receipt of Ext.P8 notification. These facts were not disputed. The position obtained in terms of the decision in W.P.(C).No.36206 of 2008 was also not refuted by the respondents. In such circumstances, in view of the position that Ext.P8 notification was obtained in the petitioner's office only on 19.1.2004, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he is also entitled to get the benefit of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.36206 of 2008 passed in a similar circumstance. I am also in perfect agreement with the judgment in W.P.(C).No.36206 of 2008. Therefore, I am of the view that the liability fixed against the petitioner alleging registration of documents without looking into Ext.P8 notification, cannot be sustained in the light of the judgment referred to above. In such circumstances, the liability fixed against the petitioner under item No.2 in Ext.P4 is set aside. As noticed hereinbefore, other liability fixed under item No.1 was dropped as is obvious from Ext.P17 and P18. Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to issue N.L.C to enable the petitioner to draw DCRG as admitted as per Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.21165 of 2009 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.21165/2009 JUDGMENT 24th February, 2010