JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in RoC. No. 8325/A/2019 dated 27.06.2019 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same; consequently direct the Respondent to issue Registration Certificate by registering the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk by considering the Petitioner's Application dated 10.06.2019 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.) Heard Mr. R. Neelakandan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioner was working as Advocate Clerk under Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, Namakkal in Tamil Nadu. The registration of the Advocate Clerks in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by the Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), made by this Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which has come into force with effect from 01.12.1988. In accordance with the Rules, the Petitioner had registered himself as recognized Advocate Clerk of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and Certificate No. 1/2016 dated 08.06.2016 was issued to him by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. The said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate by complaint dated 30.04.2019 requested the Respondent to cancel the registration of the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk claiming that the Petitioner has indulged in malpractices such as collecting abnormal amounts ranging from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- from every client informing that he has to pay bribe to the court officials and he was diminishing not only the reputation of the court officials, but also exploiting his professional respect, and he had not changed his attitude inspite of warning him. During the enquiry conducted by the Respondent in this regard on 04.06.2019, the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and the Petitioner appeared, and a sworn affidavit was filed by that Advocate reiterating the aforesaid facts against the Petitioner. At that stage, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 04.06.2019 to the Respondent stating that he had relinquished from working in the office of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and he has surrendered the aforesaid Certificate recognizing him as Advocate Clerk of that Advocate. At that stage, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 04.06.2019 to the Respondent stating that he had relinquished from working in the office of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and he has surrendered the aforesaid Certificate recognizing him as Advocate Clerk of that Advocate. Taking note of those events, the Respondent in the exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Rules, by order R.O.C. No. 5964/15/2019 dated 12.06.2019 cancelled the aforesaid registration of the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk with immediate effect and directed that he should not practice as Advocate Clerk in the court premises in Namakkal District. 3. In the interregnum, the Petitioner had made an application dated 10.06.2019 to the Respondent in the prescribed form under Rule 6 of the Rules, for registering him as Clerk of another Advocate, viz., Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan. The Respondent in the exercise of powers under Rule 7 of the Rules, by order R.O.C. No. 8325/A/2019 dated 26.06.2019 rejected that application of the Petitioner stating that it was not desirable to grant the Certificate in the interests of the institution on account of the fact that though opportunity was granted, he had not cross-examined the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate during the enquiry on 04.06.2019 on the allegations levelled against him and that he had surrendered his earlier Certificate of Registration. Aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition has been filed challenging the refusal of the Respondent to register the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk of Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan, Advocate, contending that he did not cross-examine the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, as he had relinquished to work as Advocate Clerk under him, but that would not mean that he had admitted the allegations levelled against him by that Advocate. 4. The Respondent has filed Counter Affidavit dated 05.09.2019 justifying the impugned order that the failure of the Petitioner to cross-examine the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate during the enquiry conducted on 04.06.2019 in respect of his allegations against the Petitioner in the letter dated 30.04.2019 would amount to his admission, as there was no denial of the same, which would suffice to arrive at a conclusion that it was not desirable to register the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk for another Advocate, after his relinquishment to work under the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate. 5. S.Periyasamy, Advocate. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions, the question arises as to whether the refusal of the Respondent by the impugned order to register the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk of Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan, Advocate, requires any interference, and if so, in what manner? 6. For this purpose, reference would have to be made to the relevant provisions in the Rules, which are extracted below:- “5. On and from the notified date, no person shall be eligible to act as an Advocates' clerk in any of the Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu or have access to the offices of the Courts or the records maintained in such offices unless he is a recognised clerk. 6. Any person desiring to get himself registered as a recognised clerk under an advocate may apply to the competent authority in the form prescribed subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) He shall completed the age of eighteen years on the date of the application; (ii) He shall affix Court-fee stamp for the value of Rs. 5; (iii) He shall produce three stamp size copies of his recently taken photograph; (iv) He shall produce certificate of character from two respectable persons of which at least one must be from an advocate of not less than ten years standing; (v) He should not have been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude; (vi) He should not have been declared as a tout previously by any competent authority. 7. The competent authority shall reject the application of a person for grant of certificate of registration, if the applicant is not qualified, or is in the opinion of the competent authority, not a desirable person for grant of such certificate. 8. If the competent authority has not rejected the application of a person under the foregoing rule, he may issue to the applicant a certificate of registration in the prescribed form under his seal and signature. 11. No person registered as a recognised clerk of one advocate shall be business in Court and offices on behalf of any other advocate unless he has registered himself as a recognised clerk of that advocate as well: Provided that one person cannot be recognised clerk of more than two advocates. 11. No person registered as a recognised clerk of one advocate shall be business in Court and offices on behalf of any other advocate unless he has registered himself as a recognised clerk of that advocate as well: Provided that one person cannot be recognised clerk of more than two advocates. He may, however, serve any advocate other than the advocate, as whose employee, he has been registered, if such other advocate stands in the relation of husband, wife, father, son, brother or partner of such advocate. 12. A recognised clerk shall be liable to be removed by the competent authority from the register of recognised clerks and his certificate of registration shall be liable to be canceled in the following circumstances, namely:- (i) When the advocate who had employed him ceases to practise or has terminated his services; (ii) When he ceases to be under the employment of the advocate as whose recognised clerk he has been registered; (iii) When he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (iv) When he is declared as a tout; (v) For contravention of the Rules framed herein; or (vi) For any good and sufficient reason. 13. In the event of cancellation under rule 12 above, the competent authority shall notify the same to all the Courts and offices within his registering jurisdiction. 14. 13. In the event of cancellation under rule 12 above, the competent authority shall notify the same to all the Courts and offices within his registering jurisdiction. 14. Every recognised clerk shall be entitled, in connection with his employer's (Advocate's) business, to have access to the Courts and offices in respect of which the Competent authority has issued him the certificate of registration, that is to say, in the case of a recognised clerk working with an advocate in the city, the High Court and Courts in the [city of Madras] and in the case of recognised clerk working with an advocate in the moffussil, the Courts in the Judicial district of the competent authority, as the case may be.” It would emerge on a conspectus of the aforesaid statutory provisions:- (a) that the registration of an Advocate Clerk under the Rules is a recognition of pre-existing relationship of contract of personal service between a particular Advocate with a particular Clerk, whom he engages; (b) that a person cannot be registered as Advocate Clerk for more than two Advocates concurrently; (c) that in the absence of registration, an Advocate Clerk is not permitted to have access to the offices in the Courts within the jurisdictional District or the records maintained in that offices, which of course, is also confined only in relation to the employing Advocate's business; (d) that if the applicant for registration as recognized Advocate Clerk satisfies the prescribed conditions, he would normally be issued Certificate of Registration, unless the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant him such certificate; (e) that the subjective satisfaction of the character and antecedents of the applicant constitutes the opinion of the Competent Authority as to the desirability of his registration as Advocate Clerk under the Rules; (f) that in terms of clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 12 of the Rules, on the Advocate ceasing to practice or the employment of recognized Advocate Clerk by the Advocate ceases either by termination or otherwise, the Certificate of Registration issued to that Advocate Clerk under the Rules ipso facto has to be cancelled and such Advocate Clerk is removed by the Competent Authority from the Register, but it cannot be said that it caused any stigma on that Advocate Clerk so as to disable him from being employed as Advocate Clerk by another Advocate and seek registration afresh under the Rules; (g) that on the contrary, the cancellation of registration of an Advocate Clerk under clauses (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) under Rule 12 of the Rules and his consequential removal from the Register would certainly amount to attachment of a stigma debarring his future employment as Advocate Clerk by any other Advocate and his registration under the Rules; and (h) that the cancellation of the registration of a Clerk under the Rules is notified to all the Courts and offices in the jurisdictional District. 7. Before proceeding further, it must be recapitulated that the judicial review by the Writ Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, is to be directed not against the decision, but is confined to examination of the decision-making process. Inasmuch as the registration of a person as Advocate Clerk under the Rules, has an impact on his right to carry on such occupation for his livelihood, the power of the Competent Authority to reject an application for registration as Advocate Clerk under the Rules, has to be reasonably construed on the touchstone of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, eliminating arbitrariness and ensuring fairness and transparency in the process adopted. It is equally settled principle of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa -vs- Binapani Dei ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 ) that administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of the case with supporting evidence against him and he must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. 8. In the light of the aforesaid legal principles, it requires to be determined as to whether the cancellation of registration of the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk under the Rules by the order dated 12.06.2019 has the effect of causing any stigma on the Petitioner so as to reject his application dated 10.06.2019 for fresh registration. The enquiry conducted by the Respondent on 04.06.2019 was pursuant to the complaint dated 30.04.2019 made by the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, under whom he was then employed, meaning thereby that it was a proceeding initiated under clause (vi) of Rule 12 of the Rules. However, a reading of the order dated 12.06.2019 issued by the Respondent as outcome thereof reveals that the Petitioner at the enquiry submitted a letter dated 04.06.2019 relinquishing his employment as Clerk under the said Thiru. However, a reading of the order dated 12.06.2019 issued by the Respondent as outcome thereof reveals that the Petitioner at the enquiry submitted a letter dated 04.06.2019 relinquishing his employment as Clerk under the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate and surrendered his Certificate of Registration, which gives rise to the inference that since his employment as a Clerk under that Advocate then ceased, the cancellation of the registration as Advocate Clerk followed as a necessary concomitant in terms of clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 12 of the Rules, and that the investigation into the truth of the allegations levelled against by the Petitioner had not reached its logical end. It is conspicuous to notice here that there is no mention in that order dated 12.06.2019 about the failure of the Petitioner to cross-examine the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate in that enquiry refuting the allegations levelled against him despite opportunity provided so as to arrive at the conclusion that it would amount to admission of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in the complaint dated 30.04.2019 and in the sworn affidavit dated 04.06.2019 filed in support thereof. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohindhr Singh Gill -vs- Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] has laid down the dictum that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. As such, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the Respondent in the subsequent order dated 26.06.2019, which is challenged in this Writ Petition and the Counter Affidavit dated 05.09.2019, that the Petitioner is deemed to have accepted the allegations levelled against him by the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, under whom he had worked. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.06.2019 rejecting the application of the Petitioner, which cannot be upheld, is set aside. 9. At the same time, it is hastened to clarify that the aforesaid conclusion arrived cannot result in eschewing the complaint dated 30.04.2019 made by the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate to the Respondent while considering the subsequent application dated 10.06.2019 made by the Petitioner for registration afresh as Advocate Clerk under the Rules, through another Advocate, viz., Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan. 9. At the same time, it is hastened to clarify that the aforesaid conclusion arrived cannot result in eschewing the complaint dated 30.04.2019 made by the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate to the Respondent while considering the subsequent application dated 10.06.2019 made by the Petitioner for registration afresh as Advocate Clerk under the Rules, through another Advocate, viz., Thiru. N.R.Ranganathan. It is beyond cavil that the stream of administration of justice has to be maintained pure and clean at all times and objectionable persons indulging in corrupt practices have to be kept away at a safe distance from meddling with the working of the judicial system in any form whatsoever. It is precisely for that reason, Rule 7 of the Rules, not only confers power, but also casts duty on the Competent Authority to ensure that a person, who is not desirable, is not registered as Advocate Clerk even if he otherwise satisfies the qualifications prescribed for the same. Viewed from that perspective, the complaint dated 30.04.2019 made by the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, levelling allegations against the Petitioner still continues to have relevance to ascertain the suitability of engaging the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk of another Advocate and for consequent registration under the Rules for that purpose. However, except for the bare assertion on oath of the contents of the complaint without specific details in the sworn affidavit of the said Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate filed on 04.06.2019, no concrete materials to corroborate the same appear to have been placed on record before the Respondent as noticed from the orders dated 12.06.2019 and 26.06.2019, and that would not suffice to take any meaningful decision. This would imply that though the Respondent is bound to take cognizance of the aforesaid complaint against the Petitioner, and necessary investigation has to be further conducted to arrive at the truth of its contents. If the result of that investigation is not favourable to the Petitioner, the evidence procured in that regard has to be informed to him in conformity with the principles of natural justice so as to enable him to place his explanation for the same, and if necessary, permit cross-examination of the witnesses where their credibility is in doubt. If the result of that investigation is not favourable to the Petitioner, the evidence procured in that regard has to be informed to him in conformity with the principles of natural justice so as to enable him to place his explanation for the same, and if necessary, permit cross-examination of the witnesses where their credibility is in doubt. Depending upon the outcome of the aforesaid exercise, the Respondent shall have to form his opinion as to the desirability of registering the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk and thereupon pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law on the aforesaid application dated 10.06.2019 made by the Petitioner and communicate that decision. The report of such action taken shall be filed by the Respondent before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. In fine, the Writ Petition is ordered on the aforesaid terms. No costs.