Soumya.E.S vs District Court, Kottayam, Collectorate Post, Kottayam

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"i) Call for the records leading to exhibit P8 notice and exhibit P9 order and the same may kindly be quashed by a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order writ direction, directing the respondent to issue registration to the petitioner under Rule 4 and 6 of Pleader's Clerk's rules.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order writ direction, directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to work as an advocate clerk in Pala Court Complex.

iv) Award costs and

iv) Any other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit."

The petitioner is an advocate clerk working under Advocate Shijo M John. It is the case of the petitioner that she had undergone practice under senior advocate clerk Smt.Manumol K.G from March 2017 onwards. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Pleaders Clerks Rules, 1958, before the District Judge, Kottayam and Ext.P1 is the application. Along with Ext.P1, Exts.P2 to P5 were also enclosed. The application of the petitioner was rejected earlier as evident by Ext.P6. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P. (C)No.37482/2018 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was allowed as evident by Ext.P7 judgment, in which it is stated that the copies of any material, which is relied on, as against the petitioner, shall be served on the petitioner before passing orders in Ext.P1. Thereafter, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner for an enquiry. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted in total violation of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed by the respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order is passed by the respondent without following the directions in Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7 judgment.

"4. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the rejection of an application without notice to the petitioner and without putting her on notice of the contents of the allegations as against her is not tenable. Ext.P6 is therefore set aside. There will be a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for registration. In case there is any material against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be put on notice of the allegations and heard before orders are passed, as directed above. Orders shall be passed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The copies of any material, which is relied on, as against the petitioner, shall also be served on the petitioner."

After Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P8 notice was issued to the petitioner. The contents in Ext.P8 notice is extracted hereunder:

"ബഹുമമാനപപ്പെട്ട കകമാട്ടയയം ജജിലമാ കകമാടതജിയജി നജിനയം ശശ്രീമതജി സസൗമമ E.S, ഇടയമാട്ടട്ട് ഹസൗസട്ട്, വളജിചജിറ വജികലജട്ട് , വളജിചജിറ പജി. ഒ ., മശ്രീനചജി തമാലൂകട്ട് , കകമാട്ടയയം -പന പതരമപപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതട്ട്,

അഡഡ്വകകറട്ട് കമാ കജിപന്റെ പുതജിയ രജജികസ്ട്രേഷനുകവണജി തമാങ സമ പ്പെജിച അകപക്ഷ ബഹുമമാനപപ്പെട്ട കകരള ഹഹകകമാടതജിയുപട WP. (C)No.37482/18 dtd. 07.12.2018 തശ്രീയതജിയജി പുറപപ്പെടുവജിച ഉത്തരവജി പ്രകമാരയം തശ്രീ പ്പെമാക്കുന്നതജിപന സയംബനജിച്ചുള പതളജിപവടുപ്പെജിനമായജി 14.01.2019 തശ്രീയതജിയജി 2 P.M.നട്ട് തമാങ കകമാട്ടയയം ജജിലമാ കകമാടതജി ഓഫശ്രീസജി ബനപപ്പെട്ട കരഖക സഹജിതയം ഹമാജരമാകണപമന്നട്ട് ഇതജിനമാ അറജിയജിച്ചു പകമാള്ളുന."

Thereafter, Ext.P9 order is passed. This Court in Ext.P7 judgment clearly stated that an application without notice to the petitioner and without putting her on notice of the contents of the allegations as against her is not tenable. Thereafter this Court directed the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for registration. This Court also directed the respondent that, in case there is any material against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be put on notice of the allegations and heard before orders are passed, as directed above. The last sentence in Ext.P7 judgment is that "The copies of any material, which is relied on, as against the petitioner, shall also be served on the petitioner".

The learned Government Pleader takes me through paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit. It will be better to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit.

"5. It is pointed out that except giving Ext.R1(b) statement, the petitioner had not chosen to adduce any further evidence, whatsoever. Nor did she choose to place any material, which would point to her innocence on the allegation referred to above. The then District Judge, Kottayam found that, from the statement given by the petitioner, it is clear that the endorsement was made by her, on behalf of one Santhosh, who is also an Advocate Clerk and that this was done as a proxy, without any authorisation. Her explanation that she was induced by an offer to drop the proceedings was not convincing to the District Judge. It is in such circumstances that her application for registration was rejected by the impugned order. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned order is in accord with law and the same is not in violation of Ext.P7 judgment or the principles of natural justice. Ext.P8 is legal and sustainable.

The allegation in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition are not correct. Ext.R1(a) notice had not violated the directions in Ext.P7 judgment. The petitioner had abundant notice of the specific allegation against her and she had offered her explanation in respect of the same in Ext.R1(b) statement. Therefore, the petitioner can not contend that she was under the impression that there was no allegation against her, upon receiving Ext.P8 notice. The further averment in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition that the petitioner had produced all relevant documents before the respondent is also not correct."

The respondent stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had abundant notice of the specific allegation against her and she had offered her explanation in respect

of the same in Ext.R1(b) statement. But according to me, that is not sufficient, when this Court specifically issued certain directions in Ext.P7 judgment. I think there is no sufficient compliance of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment by the respondent while passing Ext.P9 order. On this short point, I think Ext.P9 order can be set aside and the matter can be sent back to the respondent for fresh consideration. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the respondent is free to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

i) Ext.P9 order is set aside.

ii) The respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii) Before passing orders, an opportunity of hearing may be given to the petitioner and other affected parties.