BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Manikumar, J.
K. Jothirani, rep.by her Power of Attorney T.M. Bommathevan
Versus
District Revenue Officer, Madurai District and Others
W.P. (MD). No. 12317 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012
Decided On : 21 September, 2012
Show Cause Notice - Registration Act - Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 - The court discussed the meaning of 'notice' and the principles of natural justice in the context of a show cause notice issued under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. The court emphasized that a show cause notice must contain specific allegations to enable the recipient to respond and that conducting an inquiry without providing details would be an empty formality. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, while allowing the Registering Authority to conduct an investigation or inquiry in accordance with the law and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the show cause notice issued under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 lacked specific details and was bereft of any allegations, rendering any potential inquiry an empty formality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to the lack of specific details in the show cause notice, and accordingly allowed the writ petition. However, the court also allowed the Registering Authority to conduct an investigation or inquiry in accordance with the law, provided that specific details of the complaint were provided and a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the adequacy of the show cause notice issued under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the lack of specific details rendered the proposed inquiry an empty formality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a show cause notice must contain specific allegations to enable the recipient to respond, and conducting an inquiry without providing details would be an empty formality. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The Registering Authority was permitted to conduct an investigation or inquiry in accordance with the law, provided that specific details of the complaint were provided and a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner.
1. When the matter came up on 18.9.2012, upon perusal of the impugned order, by observing that there is absolutely no cause of action or details of the complaint, dated 30.7.2012, 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 28.8.2012, 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 28.8.2012.
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 30.7.2012, 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. Per contra, placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in New Samundri Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 57 : (1976) 1 SCC 757 and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) No. 579 of 2010, dated 5.1.2011 C. Ashokkumar v. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul, Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even a show cause notice issued to a person must contain the allegations in a specific manner, so that, the person to whom the notice is issued would be in a position to controvert or deny any allegation. According to him, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that it is bereft of any details and the proposed enquiry would be an empty formality.
4. In a recent judgment in V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill v. Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration (2012) 5 MLJ 817, this Court considered the meaning to the word “notice”. In paragraph Nos.107 to 115, this Court has considered the term ‘notice’ as follows:
“107. Notice is the making something known, of what a man was or might be ignorant of before. And it produces divers effects, for, by its, the party who gives the same shall have some benefit, which otherwise he should not have had; the party to whom the Notice is given is made subject to some action or charge, that otherwise he had not been liable to; and has estate in danger of prejudice. (Co.Lit.309 Tomlins Law Dictionary).
108. Actual Notice is “When there is positive information of a fact,” It is “Actual knowledge by the party of the very matter or thing, of which he is said to have notice,” “It consists in express information of the fact.” It is “knowledge brought directly home to the party.” “However closely actual notice may be in many instances approximate knowledge, there may be actual notice without knowledge.” (See 29 Ame.Cyc.1113)
109. Constructive Notice, defines “Legal inference from established facts.” “Notice imputed by the law to a person not having actual notice.” “Knowledge of any fact which would put a pr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.