Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
R. Mahendiran - Appellant
Versus
The Principal District Judge, Namakkal - Respondent
W.P. No. 22821 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2020
For the Petitioner:R. Neelakandan, Advocate. For the Respondent:M. Santhanaraman, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principle that administrative orders affecting civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, ensuring fairness and transparency in the decision-making process.
Headnote:
Advocate Clerk - Registration under Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 - Rule 12 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rules 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 - The judgment discusses the registration of Advocate Clerks under the Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 and the impact of cancellation of registration. It highlights the legal provisions related to registration, conditions for registration, cancellation of registration, and the principles of natural justice. The court emphasizes the importance of fair decision-making process and adherence to natural justice principles in administrative orders affecting civil consequences.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an Advocate Clerk, sought registration under the Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 with a new Advocate after relinquishing his previous employment. The Respondent refused the registration citing failure to cross-examine and admission of allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration was a necessary consequence of relinquishing his employment and did not imply admission of allegations. The refusal to register the Petitioner with a new Advocate was unjustified as it did not consider the complete facts and lacked sufficient evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cancellation of the Petitioner's registration, refusal to register with a new Advocate, and the adherence to natural justice principles in administrative decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair decision-making process and adherence to natural justice principles in administrative orders affecting civil consequences. It held that the refusal to register the Petitioner lacked sufficient evidence and did not consider the complete facts.
Final Decision: The court set aside the refusal to register the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk with a new Advocate and directed the Respondent to conduct further investigation, provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to explain, and make a reasoned decision within 60 days.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in RoC. No. 8325/A/2019 dated 27.06.2019 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same; consequently direct the Respondent to issue Registration Certificate by registering the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk by considering the Petitioner's Application dated 10.06.2019 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.)
Heard Mr. R. Neelakandan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner was working as Advocate Clerk under Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, Namakkal in Tamil Nadu. The registration of the Advocate Clerks in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by the Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), made by this Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which has come into force with effect from 01.12.1988. In accordance with the Rules, the Petitioner had registered himself as recognized Advocate Clerk of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and Certificate No. 1/2016 dated 08.06.2016 was issued to him by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. The said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate by complaint dated 30.04.2019 requested the Respondent to cancel the registration of the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk claiming that the Petitioner has indulged in malpractices such as collecting abnormal amounts ranging from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- from every client informing that he has to pay bribe to the court officials and he was diminishing not only the reputation of the court officials, but also exploiting his professional respect, and he had not changed his attitude inspite of warning him. During the enquiry conducted by the Respondent in this regard on 04.06.2019, the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and the Petitioner appeared, and a sworn affidavit was filed by that Advocate reiterating the aforesaid facts against the Petitioner. At that stage, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 04.06.2019 to the Respondent stating that he had relinquished from working in the office of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and he has surrendered the aforesaid Certificate recognizing him as Advocate Clerk of that Advocate. Taking note of those events, the Respondent in the exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Rules, by order R.O.C. No. 5964/15/2019 dated 12.06.2019 cancelled the aforesaid registration of the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk with immediate effect and directed that he should not practice as Advocate Clerk in the court premises in Namakkal District.
3. In the interregnum, the Petitioner had made an application dated 10.06.2019 to the Respondent in the prescribed form under Rule 6 of the Rules, for registering him as Clerk of another Advocate, viz., Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan. The Respondent in the exercise of powers under Rule 7 of the Rules, by order R.O.C. No. 8325/A/2019 dated 26.06.2019 rejected that application of the Petitioner stating that it was not desirable to grant the Certificate in the interests of the institution on account of the fact that though opportunity was granted, he had not cross-examined the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate during the enquiry on 04.06.2019 on the allegations levelled against him and that he had surrendered his earlier Certificate of Registration. Aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the refusal of the Respondent to register the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk of Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan, Advocate, contending that he did not cross-examine the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, as he had relinquished to work as Advocate Clerk under him, but that would not mean that he had admitted the allegations levelle
