K.JOTHIRANI Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter came up on 18.09.2012, upon perusal of the impugned order, by observing that there is absolutely no cause of action or details of the complaint, dated 30.07.2012, warranting the District Registrar (Administration) in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Madurai (North), to issue a show cause notice to the writ petitioner and also by observing that the impugned order is bereft of details, as to what action, the said authority has contemplated, on the failure of the petitioner to submit documents and explanation to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the District Registrar (Administration), Madurai (North). Till such time, this Court also directed the respondents to refrain from taking any adverse action, in pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28.08.2012.

(2.) ON this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on instructions from the District Registrar (Administration), Madurai (North), Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that on receipt of the complaint dated 30.07.2012, from Smt.M.B.Lalitha, in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, the District Registrar (Administration), Madurai (North), has caused the show cause notice. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the said authority is empowered to cause investigation or enquiry or probe into as to whether the petitioner has committed any offences punishable under the Registration Act, 1908 and in that context, issuance of the notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. However, the learned Special Government Pleader fairly submitted that the details, which necessitated issuance of notice, in exercise of power under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, have not been clearly stated in the notice.

(3.) IN M.Arumugam v. The Tahsildar, Mambalam Guindy Taluk reported in 2010(2) CWC 543, a Tahsildar issued a notice of enquiry to the petitioner therein for change of patta. The said notice was challenged on the grounds inter alia that a civil suit was pending adjudication and, therefore, the enquiry contemplated was without jurisdiction. After considering the rival submissions, this Court, at paragraph No.14, held that the law is well settled that Writ against notice of enquiry does not lie, unless it is shown that any fundamental right is violated or any principle of natural justice is denied or the impugned notice was issued by an authority incompetent to do so. IN the absence of any such right, the Court cannot interfere with enquiry notice. The above said judgment can also be made applicable to the facts of the present case, for the limited purpose that if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, then the proceedings can be challenged in a Court of law. IN the case on hand, the petitioner has been asked to submit the documents and explanation, without being aware of the details of the complaint made against her by the said Smt.M.B.Lalitha in the complaint dated 30.07.2012. Unless the nature of allegations are set out in the show cause notice, conducting an enquiry would be an empty formality, in that there would be violation of principles of natural justice. IN such view of the matter, the said judgment can also be made applicable to the case of the petitioner .