WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.12.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.No.29133 of 2017 T.Boopathy
... Petitioner -Vs-
1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar, (Administration), South Chennai Registration District, Chennai – 15. 3.The Sub-Registrar Pammal, Chennai – 75. 4.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. The Director General of Police, Chennai.
[Deleted vide order dated 04.12.2017]
5.The Vigilance Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 6.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Home Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. http://www.judis.nic.in
... Respondents
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2
[R4 and R5 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 20.11.2017 by NKKJ in W.P.No.29133 of 2017] [R5 deleted as per order dated 04.12.2017 04.12.2017 by NKKJ in W.P.No.29133 of 2017] [R5 & R6 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 04.12.2017 by NKKJ in W.P.No.29133 of 2017]
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to release the documents dated 23.08.2016 and 26.08.2016 viz., the release deeds presented for Registration, before the 3rd respondent in pending document Nos.P231 of 2016, P233 to 236 of 2016. For Petitioner
: Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents
: Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl.G.P
ORDER
The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to release the documents dated 23.08.2016 and 26.08.2016 viz., the release deeds presented for Registration, before the 3rd respondent in pending document Nos.P231 of 2016, P233 to 236 of 2016. http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 3
2.The case of the petitioner is that his grandfather owned ancestral property comprised in S.Nos. 82/7A and 82/8C1 at Cowl Bazaar Village, Alandur Taluk, which is part of Madras City, as of now. After the death of grandmother in the year 2011, the family members wanted to divide the properties. Five documents have been executed releasing their respective shares in favour of other members on 23.08.2016 and 26.08.2016. Those documents were presented for registration before the 3rd respondent, namely, Sub Registrar, Pammal, on 23.08.2016 and 26.08.2016, after paying the correct stamp duty. that, the documents were not registered.
Even after
Since the documents, which were
submitted for registration, were neither registered nor returned, during the lifetime of petitioner's grandfather, he filed W.P. No. 34686 of 2016 for release of documents and the same is pending before this Court and subsequently, he passed away. Taking note of the pendency of the documents for a long time, for more than a year, the petitioner gave a representation on 27.03.2017. Inspite of the said representation, the documents have not been released and hence, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking the relief set out earlier.
3.Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that nonrelease of documents for more than one year is to presurrize the petitioner and others to pay “bribe”. Without payment of bribe money, nothing moves in http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 4
Registrar offices and “brokers” , “touts” are engaged by the officials to collect bribe, as CCTV's are installed in Registrar offices.
4.Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader handed over five registered documents executed by the petitioner and others before the Sub-Registrar office on 23.08.2016 and 26.08.2016, to Mr.N.Suresh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made an endorsement to that effect in the registration receipt book brought by the officials of Registrar office. In view of the above, the prayer sought for by the petitioner has been complied. However, but for the case filed by the petitioner, the petitioner would not have been in a position to receive the documents in the near future, unless he paid the bribe money. Not only in this case, but in most of the cases, bribe is said to be the reason for delay. Therefore, for deciding the larger issue, the writ petition is kept pending.
5.Since Director General of Police, who is the 5th respondent herein is no way connected with this case, his name is deleted from the array of respondents in the writ petition. However, as the corruption cases are said to be dealt with by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption under the direct supervision of Vigilance Commissioner, it is appropriate to suo motu implead The Vigilance http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5
Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9 and The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9 as 5th and 6th respondents in the writ petition. Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents.
6.This Court by an order dated 20.11.2017, raised about 12 queries to be answered by the respondents 1 to 4. A response has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, a perusal of the same would reveal that only 77 cases have been registered for the past 10 years against officials of Registration department and most of them ended in acquittal. Further, no details about the date of raid, number of persons arrested, the case number of the criminal cases registered and date of acquittal/conviction and appeal, if any pending before the court have been given. These are all the material details, which the officials are expected to file before this Court, especially, when this Court had raised queries. However, the details given by the respondents are very vague.
7.Many queries have not been answered by the respondents properly. Probably, they have not understood gravity of the issues raised through the queries made by this court, namely, the corruption in Registration Department.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 6
8.A recent survey by “Transparency International” states that India is the most corrupt country in Asia, followed by Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan and Myanmar. When it comes to bribery rate, “The Forbes” article rates India as the highest in the list with 69% bribery rate. Corruption has become rampant in all Government departments, inspite of enactment Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is being said that corruption has become the order of the day and most of the official functions are done only on payment of illegal gratification. An officer who has been appointed for doing official duties and is drawing salary from the public exchequer, cannot compel/expect the public to pay bribe for doing his duty.
9.The instant case is only the tip of an iceberg and almost all the Government offices are said to have become bedrock of corruption. Hence, some urgent preventive measures have to be taken in the interest of administration and the people. Day in and day out, people are thronging the Government offices for getting their works done and in most of the cases, it is being said that people are compelled to pay bribe almost for each and every work. At the same time, it has to be remembered that there are many honest officials who are doing their duty and their laudable works have to be appreciated. This order deals only with the corrupt elements. Need of the hour is an effective statute and efficient prosecution of offenders. http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 7
10.When the above is the sad state of affairs, it is high time to take some serious measures to prevent corruption, as corruption would fit into all definitions of offences which have been mentioned under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and National Security Act, 1980. Corruption by public servants is not only white collar crime, it is more heinous than other criminal offences, as corruption retrogrades our country's development.
11.There is no use in speaking about weeding out corruption, unless stringent statutes likes “Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers Act and Video Pirates Act, 1982” and “National Security Act, 1980” are enacted to detain the corrupt elements/officials under preventive detention law as a preventive measure. Only when preventive detention is made, those who are indulging in corruption will be deterred and fear would be inculcated in their minds. Section 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 speaks about habitual offenders committing offences under Section 8 (Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant), Section 9 (Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant), Section 12 http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 8
(Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11) of the Act and Section 13 which speaks about criminal misconduct by a public servant who habitually accepts bribe.
12.Though, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak v. R.H.Mendonca and others reported in 2000 (6) SCC 751 held that preventive detention measure is harsh, the Apex Court held that it becomes necessary in the larger interest of the society. The relevant portion in paragraph 16 of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder: “[16] .....Preventive detention measure is harsh, but it becomes necessary in the larger interest of society. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order......” Corruption is said to become order of the day and the people seems to have been driven to level of accepting it as normal. Corruption erodes and corrodes our administration. Demand of bribe itself is breach of trust of the State.
13.Therefore, the respondents have to answer the following queries: (a) Whether the State could bring out a separate preventive detention Act to detain “corrupt elements/officials/public servants” who are indulging in corruption? (b)Why not the State Government bring an amendment to “Tamil Nadu http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 9
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers Act and Video Pirates Act, 1982” to include “Public servants taking gratification” in the Act? (c) Till the new Act is enacted, why not the State Government invoke “Goondas Act [Act 14]” to detain corrupt officials/public servants on the ground that their corrupt acts affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order? (d)How many raids have been conducted by DVAC throughout the State in all the Departments including Registration offices, for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] (e) How many persons have been booked and arrested, for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] (f) How much amount has been seized by DVAC, while conducting raids, for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] (g) How many criminal cases have been filed each year by DVAC, for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 10
(h) What is the rate of conviction in corruption cases in the State for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] (i) In how many cases, conviction has been secured, for the past 10 years? [Give year wise details regarding all the departments in toto and Registration department separately] (j) Which are all the top 5 Government Departments where corruption is more as per DVAC data? (k) What are all the problems faced by DVAC during raid, investigation and prosecuting the case before the Court? (l) Whether man power available with DVAC is sufficient to execute their works and if it is not, what is the requirement? (m)Whether sufficient amount is allotted to DVAC Department, in view of reporting of more number of corruption cases? (n) Whether DVAC is making use of advanced scientific gadgets/instruments to nab the corrupt elements, while conducting raids? (o) How many public servants have been booked on the charges of corruption or demanding bribe on more than one occasion, for the past 10 years?
14.The respondents are also directed to answer what are all the steps http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 11
taken, including the steps taken to book the touts employed by officials of Registration Department, pursuant to the queries raised by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2017, apart from answering the queries raised by this Court today.
Call the matter on 11.12.2017 @ 2.15 P.M. 04.12.2017 tkp/sai Note : Issue order copy on 06.12.2017.
To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar, (Administration), South Chennai Registration District, Chennai – 15. 3.The Sub-Registrar Pammal, Chennai – 75. 4.The Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, The State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 5.The Vigilance Commissioner, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WWW.LIVELAW.IN 12
N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. tkp/sai 6.The Secretary Home Department, The State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
W.P.No.29133 of 2017
Dated : 04.12.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in
