Justice Kirubakaran takes note of Corruption in Registration Departments

In an order passed today, Justice N Kirubakaran has taken cognizance of corrupt practices meant to evade vigilance and aid the collection of bribes in offices of the state Registration Department.

Justice Kirubakaran was informed that officials at registration offices engage “middlemen” to collect bribes in their stead. This effectively circumvents the state’s efforts at monitoring the officials through CCTV cameras installed at the office premises.

The Court was informed that this menace is common in all Registration Departments. It was submitted that the money collected by such middlemen are handed over either to the Registrar or other officials in the Department. These parties are not always attached to the officer but will be found loitering in and around the registration offices having all access to all the wings of the offices. The court was appraised that,

“Without their support or co-operation or payment to them, no documents could be registered.”

A list of such persons as well as the “gifts” that are expected to accompany specific transactions were also furnished before the Court. The Court noted that,

“If the above list is to be believed, a person cannot register a document, without payment of Rs.1 lakh as bribe money for registering a one ground plot.”

In this context, Justice Kirubakaran has remarked,

“Though the people are under the mistaken impression that our country has not advanced, they will change their opinion after seeing this scientific way of corruption. These corrupt practices, would only go to show that, all is not well with the Registration Departments, if the allegations made by the petitioner are true.”

By way of background, the Court was hearing a writ petition for the release of certain documents. The petitioner had presented five documents for registration in 2016. However, till date the Registrar’s office had failed to register or return the same to the petitioner. The same were being withheld by the Registrar’s office without explanation. Writ petitions filed previously for their release had also not yielded any result.

In these circumstances, Justice Kirubakaran has impleaded the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police, Chennai. He has also framed the following questions on the issue:

1. Whether the respondents are aware that the Registrars and other officials of Registration Departments are employing third parties to collect money over and above the amount payable for registration of documents?
2. Is there any inspection or raid made by the higher officials in this regard so far?
3. If raids have been conducted, then how many such raids have been conducted, for the past 10 years?
4. Whether any money had been seized during such raids and if so, details to be furnished for the past 10 years with regard to the quantum of seized money?
5. How many cases have been registered under Prevention of Corruption Act and how many persons have been arrested?
6. If any departmental action has been taken against the erring officials and what is the result of the departmental action, so taken, pursuant to seizure of corrupt money?
7. If third parties have been employed for collecting money, what are the steps taken by the respondents to do away with such illegal system of collecting money, including arrest of those “touts”?
8. Whether the Registrars are filing their assets every year to the authorities concerned and whether any officer has been charged for having been in possession of disproportionate wealth during service?
9. Why not the Registration Departments install Digital Login System so that only the officials/staff working in the said Departments could enter the office so that third parties could be prevented from having access into the office?
10. When there is a decision of this Court that three weeks’ time would be the maximum time limit either for registering or returning the document, why the 3rd respondent has retained the documents of the petitioner for more than one year?

The matter has been posted to be heard next on December 4, 2017.

Read Order below.