1 3
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.794 of 2024
Shri Surajit Sengupta, S/o Lt. Sankar Sengupta, residence of A.D.
–
Nagar, Dindayal, Ashram Para, Agartala, West Tripura-799003.
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The District Registrar, Office of the District Magistrate & Collector,
West Tripura, Agartala (West)-799001.
... The Respondents
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K . Deb, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, GA
[
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
18/12/2024
Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.
Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor
N. Bhattacharyya, learned GA appearing for the respondents-State.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that he being a registered
deed writer, his license had been cancelled in violation of the provision of
Rule 131 of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989. The fact of the
case is that the petitioner is a Secretary of Deed Association. In
Writer’s
that capacity, on the basis of some newspaper reports and anonymous
letters, a general body meeting of was held. In
Deed Writer’s Association
that meeting, it was decided that all the facts under different complaints
may be placed before the District Registrar. According to such decision, the
Association had submitted representations through the Secretary i.e. the
petitioner. The petitioner has not submitted the representation in his
personal capacity. It is the decision of all
the members of the Deed Writer’s
2 3
Page of
Association. In spite of that the District Registrar had issued a show-cause
notice stating inter alia that the petitioner has to explain as to why he had
submitted such representation making false allegations in connection with
e to the intending candidates. The
granting of new deed writer’s licens
petitioner duly replied the show-cause notice. Thereafter, on consideration
of the statements made in the reply, the District Registrar vide order dated
27.11.2024(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) had cancelled the license of the
petitioner w.e.f. 27.11.2024. The order dated 27.11.2024 issued by the
District Registrar is under challenge before this Court.
Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel has submitted that under Rule
131 of Tripura Registration (Amendment) Rules, 1989 (here-in-after
referred to as Rules of 1989), before cancelling the license of any deed
writer, a regular proceeding must be initiated in case there is breach of any
of the provisions of the rules contained in Rules of 1989 or of any
misconduct. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel has further submitted
that the license of the petitioner had been cancelled without conducting any
regular procedure or enquiry. In view of this, the order of cancellation
dated 27.11.2024 was passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned GA appearing for the
State-respondents, particularly District Registrar has submitted that there is
an alternative remedy and the petitioner has not taken the recourse of this
alternative remedy. Under Rule 131 there is a specific provision for
preferring an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration. The
petitioner has not exhausted the remedy itself lies in the Rules of 1989.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
In my opinion, since Rule 131 of the Rules of 1989 clearly provides
for initiating a regular proceeding before cancelling the license of deed
writers, then, in that case, the cancellation of the license without
conducting a regular proceeding is definitely in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
3 3
Page of
It is also true that Rule 131 clearly provides for preferring an appeal
before the Inspector General of Registration within 30(thirty) days from the
date of the order of cancellation of the license.
Having considered the issues involved in the present writ petition, in
my opinion, since the order was passed under Rule 131 without conducting
a regular proceeding, the said order is necessary to be kept in abeyance till
an appropriate order is passed by the appellate authority.
The petitioner is directed to exhaust the remedy as provided under
Rule 131 of Rules of 1989 within the prescribed period.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
SAIKAT Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2024.12.19
15:48:00 +05'30'