ANGELA @ ANGELA THOMAS Vs. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order cancelling the document writing licence dated 06.11.2015.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the Sub Registrar was transferred from other district and at that point of time, in that particular office, the practice of registering the document was upto 3.30 p.m. after the incumbent officer joined there, she shortened it upto 2.00 p.m. Therefore, the other document writers approached her to extend the time upto

(3.) 30 p.m. for which, the said officer demanded more money which was not accepted by the document writers. In fact, they also brought it to the notice of the authority concerned. Previously, it was provided upto 3.30 p.m. Though it was only 02.00 p.m. as fixed by the department the said officer was ready only on payment of bribe which they have not accepted. According to the petitioner, she would contend that since they refused to pay the bribe the said officer used to irritate, insult and abuse and delay the process of registration of the documents in respect of his clients and suddenly she received a notice dated 18.08.2015 suspending her document writer licence for a period of six months. Therefore, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.15339 of 2015 before this Court and this Court by order dated 01.09.2015 was pleased to quash the suspension order on the ground of no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and further directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. On the same day, further show -cause notice was issued seeking explanation as to why the petitioner's document writer licence cannot be permanently cancelled and to offer the explanation for three charges for which the petitioner gave explanation on 16.09.2015. According to the petitioner, the alleged charges three in numbers are all baseless and using of filthy language or shouting at the officer by the petitioner does not arise at all. Further, she was not given an opportunity of examining any witness or cross -examining any of the witnesses. Therefore, the order passed by the authority is wrong. She would contend that as per Rule 16, there should be an enquiry after giving a show cause notice. In this connection, she would also rely upon a decision of this Court in Raja Sherifuden vs. State, Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Fort St George, Chennai ? 9 reported in 2011 (4) CTC 1, wherein the licensing authority did not even hold any enquiry before passing the order of cancellation of the licence and hence, the impugned order was set aside. He would contend that the order is illegal. 3.A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Sub Registrar who has also been included as respondent in his individual capacity. The allegation that the previous Registrar used to receive the documents upto 3.30 p.m. is a false one. As per the circular dated 22.10.2010, the Sub Registrar can receive the papers only upto 2.00 p.m. which will only adhere to by the third respondent. Whereas the third respondent has categorically stated that when the third respondent was discharging her official duty the petitioner used filthy language and threatened her to accept and act according to her wish. Therefore, she lodged a complaint dated 15.08.2015 for the offence committed by the petitioner on 14.08.2015 in the office. It was also intimated to her superior officers by official communication dated 15.08.2015 and based on that, the charges were framed against the petitioner and thereafter action was initiated in accordance with law and the licence was cancelled following all the legal norms. As a public servant she was discharging her duty under law. On 07.08.2015 at about 12.30 pm when she entered the office, the petitioner started a quarrel with the third respondent. Wherein the petitioner intimidated that her client being a municipal councillor, he can come only after 3.00 p.m. and insisted the document should be registered even after 3.00 pm. which was specifically rejected by the third respondent. On the same day, she again came to the office at 06.15 p.m. and coerced the third respondent to receive the documents and she wanted to talk about the illegal acts. In fact, she had even put up a board in the office that no document should be received beyond the stipulated time. On that day, she further threatened that the third respondent has to act according to the petitioner's wish. Further, on 14.08.2015 when the sale deed was presented by the petitioner when the power of attorney deed was not properly incorporated and the correction was pointed out, to the shock and surprise of the third respondent the petitioner in an uncivilized manner behaved wit the public officer by using unparliamentary and filthy words at the Government officer. Further, she openly threatened that she is giving unnecessary disturbances to previous Sub Registrar also and unless the third respondent is yield to her demand, she would also foist a false complaint against the third respondent. Further, they would mainly contend that as against the order there is an appeal provision and without availing the appeal remedy, the present writ as contemplated under the Act is not correct.