K. Surender Rao and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the provisions of section 71 of the registration act, 1908 clearly mandates that the registering authority, if refused to register a document, has to necessarily assign reasons to be recorded. (2) no registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 7. further, if the registering officer passed an order as provided for under section 71 of the act, refusing to register the documents, petitioners can as well prefer an appeal as provided for under section 72 of the act, which is a statutory appeal, and agitate the same before the appellate authority. hence, this court is of the view that these writ petitions can as well be disposed of without going into the merits holding that the action on the part of the registering authority i.ordergopala krishna tamada, j.1. as the point involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. facts, in brief, are: petitioners in all these writ petitions are vendor and vendees of some sale deeds. they presented the said sale deeds before the second respondent - district registrar for registration, but the second respondent refused to register the said sale deeds and raised two objections viz., (1) that unless and until a clearance is obtained under the provisions of act 33 of 1976, no registration can be done; (2) that he received instructions from the first respondent not to register the lands in question. according to the petitioners, though the said objections are not by way of written order, they represented before the second respondent as to how the lands in question are outside the purview of act 33 of 1976 and also requested him to furnish a copy of the instructions received by him. despite their representation, the second respondent kept the documents pending for registration. assailing the said action, these writ petitions have been filed.3. a separate counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions denying the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions.4. heard learned counsel, mr. p. venugopal, and mr. a. satya prasad, learned special government pleader, representing the learned advocate-general for the respondents.5. having heard both the learned counsel this court is of the view that it is not for this court to go into the various aspects raised on either side. the factual aspects are not at all in dispute. after execution of the sale deeds, the petitioners approached the second respondent and requested him to get the documents registered and the second respondent refused to register the same on two grounds, but the said refusal is not by way of a written order. according to me, the said action on the part of the second respondent is contrary to the statutory requirements. the provisions of section 71 of the registration act, 1908 clearly mandates that the registering authority, if refused to register a document, has to necessarily assign reasons to be recorded. in this context it may be relevant to refer to section 71 of the act.71. reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:-(1) every sub-registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his book no. 2, and endorse the words 'registration refused' on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.(2) no registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.6. from the said provision of law, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the action on the part of the second respondent in keeping the documents pending with him and directing the petitioners to comply with the objections raised by him is wholly arbitrary and illegal. when once a document is presented to the registering authority either he has to register the said document or pass an order of refusal recording his reasons, which is the requirement as provided for under the statute, but not the one as done by the second respondent herein.7. further, if the registering officer passed an order as provided for under section 71 of the act, refusing to register the documents, petitioners can as well prefer an appeal as provided for under section 72 of the act, which is a statutory appeal, and agitate the same before the appellate authority. hence, this court is of the view that these writ petitions can as well be disposed of without going into the merits holding that the action on the part of the registering authority i.e. the second respondent in keeping the documents pending without passing any order is definitely contrary to the provisions of law. accordingly, the second respondent is hereby directed to pass an order forthwith preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order, on merits, so that the petitioners may approach the appellate authority as provided for under section 72 of the act.with the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.

1. As the point involved in this batch of writ petitions is one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by a common order.

2. Facts, in brief, are: Petitioners in all these writ petitions are vendor and vendees of some sale deeds. They presented the said sale deeds before the second respondent - District Registrar for Registration, but the second respondent refused to register the said sale deeds and raised two objections viz., (1) that unless and until a clearance is obtained under the provisions of Act 33 of 1976, no registration can be done; (2) that he received instructions from the first respondent not to register the lands in question. According to the petitioners, though the said objections are not by way of written order, they represented before the second respondent as to how the lands in question are outside the purview of Act 33 of 1976 and also requested him to furnish a copy of the instructions received by him. Despite their representation, the second respondent kept the documents pending for registration. Assailing the said action, these writ petitions have been filed.

3. A separate counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions denying the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions.

4. Heard learned Counsel, Mr. P. Venugopal, and Mr. A. Satya Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate-General for the respondents.

5. Having heard both the learned Counsel this Court is of the view that it is not for this Court to go into the various aspects raised on either side. The factual aspects are not at all in dispute. After execution of the sale deeds, the petitioners approached the second respondent and requested him to get the documents registered and the second respondent refused to register the same on two grounds, but the said refusal is not by way of a written order. According to me, the said action on the part of the second respondent is contrary to the statutory requirements. The provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 clearly mandates that the Registering Authority, if refused to register a document, has to necessarily assign reasons to be recorded. In this context it may be relevant to refer to Section 71 of the Act.

71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:-(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words 'registration refused' on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

(2) No Registering Officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.

6. From the said provision of law, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the action on the part of the second respondent in keeping the documents pending with him and directing the petitioners to comply with the objections raised by him is wholly arbitrary and illegal. When once a document is presented to the Registering Authority either he has to register the said document or pass an order of refusal recording his reasons, which is the requirement as provided for under the statute, but not the one as done by the second respondent herein.

7. Further, if the Registering Officer passed an order as provided for under Section 71 of the Act, refusing to register the documents, petitioners can as well prefer an appeal as provided for under Section 72 of the Act, which is a statutory appeal, and agitate the same before the appellate authority. Hence, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions can as well be disposed of without going into the merits holding that the action on the part of the Registering Authority i.e. the second respondent in keeping the documents pending without passing any order is definitely contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, the second respondent is hereby directed to pass an order forthwith preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order, on merits, so that the petitioners may approach the appellate authority as provided for under Section 72 of the Act.

With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.