Dismissed

N. Kandasamy, v. the District Registrar

Madras HC13 Nov 2013WP(MD)/18308/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a document writer's licence. The Court held that a non-specified suspension period is valid for six months under amended Rule 16 and that camera recordings alongside FIR made the materials sufficient for suspension.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

N. Kandasamy, Vs the District Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.11.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18308 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶7

N.Kandasamy ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Registrar (Admin.), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Sub Registrar, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District. ..Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order made in proceedings No.2270-1/A1/2013, dated 28.10.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same illegal.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.Pala Ramasamy

¶11

For respondents : Mr.M.Raja Rajan,

¶12

Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner is a document writer. His licence number is C10/RMD/1984. Now, the first respondent by his proceedings in No.22701/A1/2013, dated 28.10.2013, has suspended the said licence. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

¶15

2.This writ petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate taking notice for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the suspension has been issued based on the FIR in Crime No.115/2013, dated 25.10.2013, registered at R.S.Mangalam Police Station. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a reading of the FIR would go to show that the petitioner was not actually present at the time of the occurrence and there is only a reference in the FIR that the occurrence has taken place at his instigation. The learned counsel would further submit that under Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers License Rules, the period of suspension shall not exceed one month at a time, but, in the impugned order, according to the learned counsel, there is no such time limit prescribed.

¶17

4.I have considered the above submissions.

¶18

5.So far as the Rule 16 is concerned, the learned Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate has brought to my notice that Rule 16(1) has been amended with effect from 13.12.1992, under which the period of suspension shall not

¶19

¶20

exceed six months at a time, for any misconduct. Here, in this case, though the period has not been mentioned, it shall be treated that the suspension order shall be in force for a period of six months ie., from 28.10.2013 and before expiry of the said date, it will be open for the District Registrar to consider as to whether the period of suspension shall be extended beyond six months or not. Thus, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Rule 16, is rejected.

¶21

6.So far as the first contention is concerned, the suspension order has been issued not only based on the allegation in the FIR but also based on the L.P. Camera recordings. From the records, it could be seen that in the Sub Registrar's office, there is an L.P. Camera fittings, which records the entire happenings in the Office. According to the suspension order, the recorded version shows that on 24.10.2013, when it was insisted upon by the officials that third parties should not unnecessarily enter into the Office, at the instigation of the petitioner, the accused in the FIR entered into the office and ransacked the same. Thus, it is based on the said recordings of the L.P. Camera as well as the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner's licence has been suspended. The conduct of the petitioner is certainly a misconduct, provided the allegations are true. For the purpose of suspension of the licence, the materials available are, in my considered opinion, sufficient.

¶22

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents may be directed to appear before this Court so as to explain to this Court as to whether the petitioner committed the crime. In my considered opinion, the said course is not at all possible, because it is for the Police to investigate the matter thoroughly. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit at all in this writ petition.

¶23

In the result, this writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶26

/True copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The District Registrar (Admin.), Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶30

2.The Sub Registrar, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶31

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader in SR.No.56064

¶32

+1CC to M/s.Pala Ramasamy, Advocate in SR.No.55884

¶33

W.P(MD)No.18308 of 2013 13.11.2013

¶34

gcg

¶35

PBK 04/12/2013 2P/5C

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N. Kandasamy, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Kandasamy, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.B. Basheer Mohamad, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Gunasekaran, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

M. Raghu Krishnan, Vs the District Collector

A.Davidson Tharmaraj, Vs the Chief Educational Officer

S.Dhanasekaran, Vs the Secretary to Government

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu