Limited relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue directions to the 2nd respondent to furnish certified copy of the Purchase Certificate in OA No.437/1971 of Land Tribunal. Evidently the petitioner had submitted copy application for said purpose before the 2nd respondent in the year 2008. Exhibit P3 letter was issued by the 2nd respondent intimating that the file pertaining to the case, OA No.437/1971 cannot be traced out from the Record Room in the office of the 2nd respondent and the application will be allowed as and when the records are traced out. Petitioner contended that, despite lapse of several years the copy application was not disposed of by the 2nd respondent and the certified copy of the Purchase Certificate was not issued.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is mentioned that any person is entitled to apply for copy W.P.(c) No. 10536/2009 -2-
of any document filed before or in the custody of the Land Tribunal, according to Rule 122 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970. But it is mentioned that the document in question pertains to the year 1971 and the file in question is 38 years old. It is also mentioned that there is a possibility that the number of the file shown in the title documents is not correct.
3. As admitted in the counter affidavit the petitioner is entitled to get certified copy of the Purchase Certificate applied by him. The 2nd respondent is not entitled to keep the copy application indefinitely pending merely assigning the reason that the records are not traceable. It is for the 2nd respondent to make earnest efforts to find out the records and to issue the certified copy applied for, if the records are available. If the records were already destroyed, there may be some documents available with the 2nd respondent to prove such destruction of records. At any rate 2nd respondent is bound to dispose of the copy application either by issuing certified copy or by rejecting W.P.(c) No. 10536/2009 -3-
the application on the basis of non-availability of records.
3. Therefore this court is of the opinion that interest of justice can be achieved by issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision with respect to disposal of the copy application within a time limit to be stipulated.
4. Hence this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the copy application mentioned in Ext.P3 letter either by issuing certified copy of the document applied, or by refusing the grant of such document after proper reasoning to be mentioned, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge