JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. - This judgment arises out of two writ petitions, bearing W.P. (C) No.13881 of 2015 by the M/s. Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters (P) Ltd. and W.P. (C) No.15473/2015 by the M/s. Rajdhani Systems & Estate (P) Ltd., represented through its Managing Director Tirupati Panigrahi for quashing of the letters issued by the Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing, CID, Crime Branch, Bhubaneswar, i.e. Opposite Party No.1 to the Sub-Registrar, Jatni in the district of Khurda, i.e. Opposite Party No.4 not to register any sale or transfer of the properties of the aforesaid two companies or its Directors without clearance of the Opposite Party No.1.

2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and it is borne out from the pleadings that the petitioners are dealers in estate and are also involved in construction of buildings and flats. The business in usual course involves activities like purchase of land, obtaining permission for conversion from agriculture land to homestead, development of same and make layout of roads and set back arrangements so as to render the land to be plotted in different sizes to be sold to intending buyers by way of outright purchase or by way of payment in installments. While continuing such business, the Directors of both the companies were arrested on 25.12.2012 by the Crime Branch (E.O.Ws.), Bhubaneswar upon receipt of allegation from a complaint, who has invested huge amount of money to purchase plot from the petitioners company.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigation Officer seized the documents, such as agreement, books of account and land records from the corporate office of the petitioners. However, Annexure-4 issued by the Investigation Officer are the letter of request to the Sub-Registrar, Jatni. The said letter required the Sub-Registrar not to allow registration to sale or purchase. It is proposed to be made by the petitioners company or its Directors. The registering authorities were directed to obtain permission from the Crime Branch to effect and allow registration. The petitioners Counsel submitted that five cases have been registered against the petitioners but the plots, which are described in the schedules to the writ petitioners, are not subject matter of any of the criminal cases. It is also borne out from the record that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the petitioners on their depositing crores of rupees in the Registry of Apex Court in a similar case, in W.P. (C) No.17313/2014 filled by this two companies, a Bench of this Court has held that the Sub-Registrar, Jatni, without any impediment, has refrained from registering the sale deed executed by the petitioners in spite of the judicial order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. It is further held that the Sub-Registrar is duty bound to effect of registration of sale deed validly executed unless prevented by order of Court or provision of law. In such factual back drop, the petitioners prayed that Annexures-4 be quashed and they may be allowed to deal with the properties to carry on their day to day business affairs.

4. The opposite party No.1 in essence challenges the writ petitions treating it as not maintainable as the letter dated 22.5.2013 had early been challenged in W.P. (C) No.17556/2013, W.P.(C) No.17313/2014 and CRLMC No.3751/2014. The W.P.(C) No.17556/2013 and CRLMC No.3761 of 2014 were disposed of withdrawn but the W.P. (C) No.1731/2014 has been disposed of on 30.09.2014 granting some relief to the petitioners but the Hon’ble Court did not quash the letter dated 22.05.2013. Hence, it is submitted that the principles of res judicata will apply and the relief sought for the present writ petitions cannot be granted. It is further stated that the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of two years and there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions should be dismissed.

Secondly, it is conte