Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1149 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI
SATYANARAYAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVICE 18, SHUBH
LABH HOME COLONY KANADIYA ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AMIT S. AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
DEVAASHEESH DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF M.P.,VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS,
COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, PANJIYAN
BHAWAN, 35-A, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT INDORE
COLLECTOR OFFICE, MOTI TABELA INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DR. AMRESH NAIDU PRESENTLY POSTED AT
DISTRICT REGISTRAR (ZONE-II) OFFICE OF
DISTRICT REGISTRAR ZONE II, FIRST FLOOR,
DHAKKAN WALA KUAN, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. ARCHANA KHER, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 20-05-2024
16:44:02
2
RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 & 3.)
(SHRI RISHI TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-4].
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with consent of both the parties.
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya(Khand Nyayapeet Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order
dated 30.04.2024, passed in W.P. No.314/2024 whereby, the writ petition has
been disposed of with certain directions.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Writ Petition No.314/2024 was filed
by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the
following reliefs :-
7.1 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
circular dated 22.11.2023 bearing no. 377/C.N./260752 passed by
the Respondent No. 2. (Annexure-P/1).
7.2 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned
order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4 being
(sic) bearing no.48/V.G.P/2023 (Annexure- P/2).
7.3 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the show-cause
notice dated 12.12.2023 against the Petitioner bearing
no.35/C.N./260752/ENQ/IGRS/ passed by the Respondent No.2
(Annexure - P/3).
7.4 Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto against Respondent
no. 4 calling upon him to explain under what authority he his
discharging the duties of Senior District Registrar, Indore and
appropriate order be passed ousting him from the office of Senior
District Registrar, Indore.
7.5 Issue a writ in the mature (sic) nature of mandamus directing
the Respondents to comply with the appointment order dated
07.03.2023 passed by the State Government whereby the has been
posted to the sole sanctioned post of Senior District Registrar,
Indore.
7.6 Appropriate Writ/order/ direction be issued to award the cost
of the present Writ Petition.
7.7 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly
be granted.
3. The present appellant is posted as Senior District Registrar, Indore.
The appellant has assailed two orders i.e. (i) order dated 22.11.2023 bearing
no.377/C.N./260752 passed by the Respondent No. 2. (Annexure-P/1) and (ii)
order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Respondent No.4 being (sic) bearing
no.48/V.G.P/2023 (Annexure- P/2). By the first order(Annexure-P/1), the
respondent No.2 Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of
Stamps, Commercial Tax Department has directed that where more than one
Senior District Registrar has been appointed, certain disputes have arisen in
respect of the work distribution, therefore, in such places where more than one
Senior District Registrar is working, the senior most District Registrar shall hold
the post of Senior District Registrar.
4. The appellant is also aggrieved by the second order whereby the
respondent No.4 himself has passed an order on 22.11.2023(Annexure-P/2) by
which he has retained the post of Senior District Registrar, Indore and also
issued a work distribution memo whereby the present appellant has been given
the charge of District Registrar of Indore-1.
5. Shri Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant contended that the appellant vide order dated 07.03.2023 have
been posted as Senior District Registrar for the whole of District Indore, after
the Government of Madhya Pradesh took a policy decision and designated the
appellant (originally borne on the cadre of District Registrar). The respondent
No.4 was similarly re-designated and posted as Senior District Registrar in
Indore, Sub-district-2. The respondent No.2/I.G. issued a letter dated
22.11.2023(Annexure-P/1) branding it as a work distribution order which is
beyond his jurisdiction and powers, not being the appointing authority, floating
a policy that where in one District more than 1 Senior District Registrar is
posted then the senior most District Registrar shall hold the charge of Senior
District Registrar. Thereafter, treating the letter dated 22.11.2023(Annexure-
P/1) as having effect and operation proprio-vigore, the respondent No.4 himself
has assumed the charge of the post of Senior District Registrar, Indore and has
issued work distribution order and also posted the appellant as District
Registrar, Indore-1, which is totally illegal and contrary to the orders of posting
issued by the appointing authority of the appellant i.e. State Government.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further contended that the
learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Registration and Stamp Executive(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules,
2007(as amended on 24.12.2023)(hereinafter referred to as ..."Rules of 2007")
whereby, the Appointing Authority is the State Government of M.P. and has
also misinterpreted the provisions of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908
treating it as if the respondent No.2 - IG has the power to issue the orders
impugned (Annexures-P/1 & P/2) while exercising the powers of general
superintendence over all the registration offices. Section 69 of the The
Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows :-
"69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration
offices and make rules.--(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise
a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the
territories under the State Government, and shall have power from
time to time to make rules consistent with this Act--
(a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and
documents; 2 *** 3
[(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to
which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or
in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of section 16A;]
(b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used
in each district;
(c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under
section 21;
(d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and
34, respectively;
(e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the
registering officer by section 63;
(f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make
memoranda of documents;
(g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub-Registrars
of the books kept in their respective offices under section 51;
[(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in
sub-section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;]
(h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II,
III and IV, respectively;
(i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration
offices;
(j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-
Registrars.
(k) Prescribing the manner in which and the terms subject to which
persons who writ documents for presentation to a registering
officer may be granted licences and the fees to be paid for such
licences]; and
(1) regulating the procedure for presentation of document,
appearance for admission, endorsement, manner of fixing signature
and seal, mode of payment of Registration Fees and other Fees
and any other process when the document is presented in
electronic form.}
( 2 ) The rules so made shall be submitted to the [State
Government] for approval, and, after they have been approved,
they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication
shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per
Section 2(a) of the "Rules of 2007"), it defines that the "Appointing
Authority" in respect of service means the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh. Then Section 2(k) of the Rules of 2007 defines : "Service" which
means the Madhya Pradesh Registration and Stamps Executive (Gazetted)
Service.
8. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the respondent
No.2 - Inspector General has no authority to pass any order in respect of
service conditions of the employees of the registration department in as much
as, on bare perusal of Section 69 of the Act of 1908, the respondent No.2 -
Inspector General has the powers of the general superintendence over all the
Registration Offices in its territory as contained in Section 69(1) (a) to (l). As
per the Recruitment Rules of 2007, the appointing authority of the appellant as
well as respondent No.4 is the State Government. The learned Single Judge
came to the wrong conclusion in Para - 20 of the order impugned that "this
Court is also of the considered opinion that Section 69 of the Act of 1908
cannot be interpreted in the manner that every order passed by the
respondent No.2/I.G. in exercise of his powers of general superintendence
over all the registration offices, requires approval from the State Government,
and if it is held that every order requires such approval and subsequent
Gazette notification, then the powers so vested in the I.G. under Section 69
would be rendered futile."
9. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the aforesaid
conclusion is absolutely misinterpreted by the learned Single Judge in as much
as the service conditions of the appellant is governed by the Recruitment Rules
of 2007, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in directing the
respondent No.2 /I.G. to pass the appropriate order to the effect that the
respondent No.4 being the Senior most District Registrar shall hold the
office/post of the Senior District Registrar, Indore, and the other Registrars,
including the appellant shall work under the respondent No.4, within a period
of one week. In view of the fact that the appointing authority being the
respondent No.1/State Govt., the learned Single Judge ought to have directed
the respondent No.1 to take a decision in accordance with law instead of
respondent No.2. Such a specific direction could not have been made. The
learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that Sub-section (2) of Section
69 of the Act of 1908 has to be read ejusdem generis to Sub-section (1) and
cannot be read in isolation. Hence, the aforesaid section provides for only rule
making powers and general superintendence as contained therein and its scope
cannot be enlarged. He placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case
o f Amar Chandra Chakraborty Vs. The Collector of Excise,
Government of Tripura & Others reported in (1972) 2 SCC 442. Para 9 of
the judgment is relevant which reads as follows :-
9. Before dealing with the contention relating to Art. 19 we consider
it proper to dispose of the argument founded on the ejusdem generis
rule and Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was contended by Shri Sen
that the only way in which s. 43 can be saved from the challenge of
arbitrariness is to construe the expression "any cause other than" in
s, 43(1) ejusdem generis with the causes specified in clauses (a) to
(g) of s. 42 (1). We do not agree with this submission.The ejusdem
generis rule,strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific
and general words. This doctrine applies w h en (i) the statute
contains an enumeration of specific words; (ii) the subjects o f the
enumeration constitute a class or category-, (iii) that class or
category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term
follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different
legislative intent. In the present case. it is not easy to construe the
various clauses of S. 42 as constituting one category or class. But
that apart, the very language of the two sections and the objects
intended respectively to be achieved by them also negative any
intention of the legislature to attract the rule of ejusdem generis.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further placed reliance in
the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Others reported
in (2010) 3 SCC 786 wherein in Paragraphs 27 and 28, it has been held as
under :-
27. The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means "of the
sa me kin d o r nature" i s a principle of construction, meaning
thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by
restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to
be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words.
This is a principle which arises "from th e linguistic implication
by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in
isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context."
It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, o r reliance on
implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless there is
some contrary indication (See Glanville Williams, `The Origins
and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem Generis Rule' 7 Conv
(NS) 119).
2 8. This ejusdem generis principle is a facet of the principle of
Noscitur a sociis. The Latin maxim Noscitur a sociis
contemplates that a statutory term is recognised by its associated
words. The Latin word `sociis' means `society'. Therefore, when
general words are juxtaposed with specific words, general words
cannot be read in isolation. Their colour and their contents are
to be derived from their context [See similar observations of
Viscount Simonds in Attorney General v. Prince Ernest Augustus
of Hanover, (1957) AC 436 at 461 of the report]
11. Per Contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 as well learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order. Section 69 of the Act of
1908 vests ample power in respondent No.2 to issue valid circular as contained
in Annexure-P/1. Moreover, the issuance of Annexure-P/1 establishes a strict
adherence to the gradation list maintained for a particular cadre due to which an
awkward situation like posting of a Senior District Registrar(having seniority in
gradation list) working under such Senior District Registrar who is junior in
gradation list but is being posted prior in time. He further submitted that shifting
of work of Senior District Registrar from the appellant to the respondent No.4
does not tantamount to shifting of said work to either any junior incumbent or
to any contemporary incumbent wherein conflict of inter-se seniority would
have subsisted. The respondent No.2 has exercised its jurisdiction strictly in
accordance with the powers vested in view of Section 69 of the Act of 1908
particularly, Section 69(j) of the Act which empowers respondent No.2
generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-registrars. The
learned Single Judge has rightly directed the respondent No.2 to pass
appropriate orders as directed by the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal
being misconceived deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. In view of the situation at hand, the only core question which arises
for consideration is that "whether the respondent No.2/Inspector General has
the powers to regulate the service conditions of the appellant by virtue of
Section 69 of the Act of 1908 or by exercising the power of
superintendence under Section 69 of the Act of 1908 ?"
14. The appellant has been appointed by the State Government as well
as posting order dated 07.03.2023(Annexure-P/7) having been issued by the
State Government i.e. respondent No.1, the impugned order could not have
been passed by the respondent No.2. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 has the
powers of general superintendence as specified in Section 69(1) (a) to (l) of the
Act of 1908 and has no powers to pass orders beyond the aforesaid provision.
15. In the present case, the respondent No.2 has passed the
order(Annexure-P/2) appointing himself as the Senior District Registrar. The
learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order Annexure-P/2 dated
22.11.2023. However, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that
the respondent No.2 had no powers to pass the order with regard to work
distribution amongst Senior District Registrar and District Registrars since the
same also amounts to change of service conditions, which the State
Government possesses the exclusive powers to do so and, therefore, ought to
have quashed order dated 22.11.2023 bearing no. 377/C.N./260752(Annexure-
P/1) as well.
16. The Apex Court in the case of I.N. Saksena Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 750 has held as under :-
"30. It is noteworthy that in enacting the impugned Act, the State
A legislature derives its competence not only from Article 309, but
also from Entry 41 of List I I o f the Seventh Schedule. Indeed,
within its allotted sphere, that is, with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule the State
legislature has, by virtue of Art. 246(3), exclusive, plenary
powers of legislation.
Entry 41, List II, reads as under:
"41. State public services; State Public Service Commission."
I t i s w ell settled th a t t h e entries i n these legislative lists in
Schedule VII are to be construed in their widest possible
amplitude, and each general word used in such Entries must be
held to comprehend ancillary or subsidiary matters. Thus
considered, it is clear that the scope of Entry 41 is wider than the
matter of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of
p u b lic servants under Article 309. T h e a re a o f legislative
competence defined by Entry 41 is far more comprehensive than
that covered by the proviso to Article 309. By virtue of Articles
246, 309 and read with Entry 41, List II, therefore, the State
legislature had legislative competence not on ly to change the
service conditions of State Civil Servants with retrospective effect
but also to validate with retrospective force invalid executive
orders retiring the servants, because such validating legislation
mu st be regarded as subsidiary or ancillary to the power of
legislation on the subject covered by Entry 41."
17. Since this Court has already held that the respondent No.2 has no
powers to deal with the service conditions of the appellant, therefore,
Annexure-P/1 dated 22.11.2023 is also hereby set aside.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the considered opinion of
this Court, the direction of learned Single Judge directing the respondent
No.2/I.G. to pass appropriate order in a particular manner to the effect that the
respondent No.4 being the senior most District Registrar shall hold the office of
Senior District Registrar, Indore and other Registrars including the appellant
shall work under the respondent no.4 is found to be misplaced and rather the
leaned Single Judge ought to have left it to the wisdom of the State
Government.
1 9 . Accordingly, directions contained in Para - 27 of the order dated
30.04.2024 in W.P. No.314/2024 so far as confirming of the order dated
22.11.2023(Annexure-P/1) bearing No.377/C.N./260752 is hereby set aside and
the order dated 22.11.2023(Annexure-P/2) bearing No.48/V.G.P./2023 is hereby
affirmed. So far as the direction passed by the learned Single Judge directing
the respondent No.2/I.G. to pass appropriate order to the effect that the
respondent No.4 being the Senior most Registrar shall hold the post of Senior
District Registrar and other Registrars including the appellant shall work under
the respondent No.4 is concerned, the same is also set-aside and in place of
respondent No.2/I.G. directs the respondent No.1 - State of M.P. to pass
appropriate order accordingly with respect to their service conditions and
further the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2023 issued to the appellant bearing
No.35/C.N./260752/ENQ/IGRS is also quashed.
20. Taking into consideration the anomalous situation which has arisen,
and after holding that the State Government is the appointing authority, this
Court direct the respondent No.1/State to pass appropriate orders with regard
to postings of the appellant as well as respondent No.4 in accordance with law.
Any consequential order which may have been passed in compliance of the
order dated 30.04.2024 in W.P. No.314/2024 shall be treated as non-est in
terms of law and shall not be binding upon the parties.
21. The writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
