Madras High Court
Mahindra World City Developers vs Inspector General Of ... on 28 April, 2023
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.12862 of 2023
Mahindra World City Developers
Ground Floor, Mahindra Towers,
No.17/18, Patulous Road,
Chennai – 600 002. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar,
Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 028.
2.District Registrar, Chengalpattu
JCK Nagar, Chengalpattu,
Tamil Nadu – 603 002.
3.Sekhar ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 2nd respondent from initiating
any proceedings pursuant to Na.Ka.No.4431/A3/2022 dated 06.10.2022.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel
For Ms.Aishwarya S Nathan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ of Prohibition has been instituted to prohibit the 2nd
respondent from initiating any proceedings pursuant to
Na.Ka.No.4431/A3/2022 dated 06.10.2022.
2. The proceedings dated 06.10.2022 is an enquiry call letter issued
by the 2nd respondent / The District Registrar, Chengalpattu to the petitioner
as well as to the complainant to participate in the enquiry held on
14.11.2022 at 11:30 a.m. As far as the said impugned call letter is
concerned, it lost its relevance, since as per the impugned notice, the
enquiry was already held on 14.11.2022 and the present writ petition has
been filed on 05.04.2023, after a lapse of about 5 months.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
mainly contended that the writ petition has been instituted to prohibit the 2 nd
respondent from initiating any proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
4. Such omnimous relief cannot be granted by the High Court, since
the power of enquiry is conferred on the authority under the provisions of
the Act. If the authorities are generally prohibited to conduct an enquiry, it
would cause prejudice to the complainant, who is otherwise entitled to
adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, on receipt
of complaint, the competent authority under the Act must issue summons to
the parties, conduct an enquiry and thereafter pass final orders by following
the procedures.
5. Intermittent intervention by the High Court during the process of
enquiry need not be made in a routine manner. The 2nd respondent / District
Registrar is a quasi-judicial authority and empowered to consider legal
grounds raised between the parties. If at all the petition is not maintainable
or otherwise, such grounds also can be raised by the petitioner before the
District Registrar during the course of enquiry. Contrarily, High Court need
not adjudicate disputed facts between the parties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
6. In the present case, the petitioner states that the complaint is
untenable, since the sale deed has not been questioned before the competent
authority. That apart, the mortgage of the property with the Bank was also
prior to the date of complaint and therefore, the complaint ought not to have
entertained by the 2nd respondent / District Registrar.
7. All such grounds are to be adjudicated with reference to the
documents and evidences available on record. High Court cannot conduct a
roving enquiry and decide such disputed facts.
8. Power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is to ensure the processes, through which, a decision is taken by the
competent authority in consonance with the Statutes and Rules in force, but
not the decision itself. Thus, the scope of power of judicial review cannot be
expanded for the purpose of adjudicating the disputed issues merely based
on the Xerox copies of the papers filed before this Court in a writ
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
9. Such disputes are to be adjudicated in a trial natured proceedings,
wherein the parties are to be examined, if required. Therefore, the High
Court is expected to exercise restraint in such matters, where the parties
raise certain disputed facts with reference to the property right, mortgage
etc.,
10. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted the copy
of the order passed in W.P.No.10291 of 2022 dated 06.03.2023, wherein
this Court referred the issue relating to Section 77-A of the Registration
Act. The point of reference in the said writ petition was, whether Section
77-A of the Registration Act will have a prospective or retrospective effect.
11. However, in the present case, the 2nd respondent / District
Registrar has to adjudicate the basic facts and then only the question of
considering retrospective or prospective effect would arise. In the absence
of determining the facts, such question would not arise at all. In other
words, the facts in this case are to be adjudicated with reference to the
complaint and thereafter, the question of application, whether it is
retrospective or prospective would arise. Mere pendency of the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
would not preclude the competent authority from deciding the issues on
merits and in accordance with law.
12. In the event of forbearing such Statutory authorities from
exercising their powers and deciding the issues, the aggrieved persons may
not be in a position to redress their grievances.
13. Several issues were raised before the Hon'ble High Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same are pending for years
together. Therefore, prohibiting the authorities at the initial stage and
keeping the matter pending for several years would result in injustice to the
parties, who all are approaching Statutory authority for redressal of their
grievances.
14. Therefore, the issue before the Hon'ble Division Bench regarding
application of Section 77-A of the Registration Act, whether prospective or
retrospective is one aspect of the matter and the adjudication regarding the
complaint given by the person is to be considered by the competent
authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
15. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of
India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, in Appeal (Civil)
No.5145 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India made the following observations:
“It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-
cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing
Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC
331, Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others Vs.
Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001 (10) SCC
639, State of U.P. vs. Braham Datt Sharma and another AIR
1987 SC 943 etc. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition
should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or
charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held
to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice
does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not
amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any
party unless the same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering
the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold
that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a
writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere
show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right
of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some
punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed,
that the said party can be said to have any grievance.”
Even the said judgment was reiterated by the Apex Court in Seimen's case.
16. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner made a submission
that the judgment relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader is
relating to show cause notice and therefore, there is no application with
reference to the facts in the present case.
17. In respect of the present writ petition, the impugned notice is an
enquiry call letter. No writ against an enquiry call letter is entertainable in a
routine manner. When the enquiry call letter has been issued by a quasi-
judicial authority under the provisions of the Act, then the parties are
expected to participate in the enquiry for the purpose of defending the case
by availing the opportunity to be provided by such authority. Contrarily, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
High Court cannot adjudicate such issues in a writ proceedings, when the
authorities have already initiated action to conduct the enquiry.
18. In the present case, the enquiry notice was issued on 06.10.2022
and the present writ petition was filed on 05.04.2023 and the date of enquiry
fixed also lapsed. This being the factum established, the writ petitioner is
not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.
19. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the
process of enquiry and defend his case in the manner known to law.
20. With this liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.04.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
kak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar,
Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar, Chengalpattu
JCK Nagar, Chengalpattu,
Tamil Nadu – 603 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.13099 of 2023
28.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
