Disposed

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2019WP(C)/87/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment was an order on a writ petition filed by licensed document writers challenging amendments to the Registration (Filing of True Copies) Rules, 1967. The couple petitioners complained that the change from A3 to A4 papers would increase their costs. The High Court directed them to file the matter first before the competent authority in the Taxes Department.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to file a representation before the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Taxes Department within six weeks.

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.BAHULEYAN NAIR @ KARAKULAM BABU AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, 'SREELAKAM', KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, CHITHARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 559.

¶8

2 RAJESH S AGED 35 YEARS S/O SIVARAMAN P.K., KUPPAMPULIKKAKAM, PANAYOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 522.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.S.SEETHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

=============================

¶20

W.P(C)No.87 of 2019

¶21

=============================

¶22

Dated this the 04^th day of January, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶25

“i. to call for records leading to Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 and to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 to Exhibit P3.

¶26

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioners and other scribes/executant to continue with the pre-amended procedure regrding filing of true copies as per Indian Registration (Filing of True Copies) Rules 1967.

¶27

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation submitted by the petiitoners and till then kept in abeyance the proposed amendment.

¶28

iv. To pass such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.”

¶29

2. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

According to the petitioners, they are licensed Document Writers functioning within the State of Kerala and that

¶32

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶33

¶34

the Government has now amended the Registration (Filing of True Copies) Rules, 1967, as per Ext.P-1 S.R.O.No.720/2018 published in gazette dated 17.10.2018 as well as Ext.P-2 S.R.O.No.913/2018 dated 17.12.2018 and that the 3^rd respondentInspector General of Registration has also modified the procedure for filing true copies in tune with Exts.P-1 & P-2 by issuing Ext.P-3 order dated 20.12.2018, modifying the procedure for filing true copies, etc. It is stated that by the said amendment, it is proposed to permit keeping of true copies of the documents in bound volumes in A4 size instead of A3 size and that it is complained by the petitioners that if the proposed amendment is carried out, the executants of a document has to spend more for registering the documents and the storage will need much more space for keeping bounded volumes compared to the earlier system, etc. Further that the scribes and other executants have purchased A3 sheets in advance and that they are now unable to use those A3 sheets purchased earlier. That the amendment has now been brought into force with effect from 01.01.2019 as per Ext.P-2. The petitioners have filed Ext.P-4 representation dated 27.12.2018 before respondents 1 & 2, praying that the abovesaid

¶35

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶36

¶37

amendments as per Exts.P-1 to P-3 may be reconsidered, so as to follow the previous system, etc.

¶38

It is seen that the competent authority of the respondent-State Government is pertaining to the Taxes Department. But it is seen that Ext.P-4 representation dated 27.12.2018 has been addressed by the petitioners to the Chief Secretary. Hence, it is ordered that it is for the petitioners to file file an appropriate petition as in Ext.P-4, which is addressed to the competent authority of the respondent-State Government in the Taxes Department and the same should be formally addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government in the Taxes Department and such representation may be filed by the petitioners before the 2^nd respondent, along with the certified copy of this judgment, without any further delay. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and will pass appropriate orders on such representation/petition, in accordance with law, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of submission of the said representation, along with the certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶40

¶41

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶42

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

vgd/05.01.19

¶44

WP(C).No.87 of 2019

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.163/2018/TD DATED 15.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.201/2018/TD DATED 17.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT MODIFYING THE PROCEDURE FOR FILING TRUE COPIES DATED 20.12.2018. EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.12.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.22 DATED 31.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT ON 12.8.2016 PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES FOR REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE EXECUTANT HIMSELF.

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adinarayana Swamy Vs the Sub Registrar

Annie Anotny Vs the District Collector

Guru Swamy Vs State of Kerala

Pathumma Beevi S, Vs the District Collector

Pathumma Beevi S. Vs the District Collector

Manju Abraham Vs State of Kerala