JAKKANAGOUDA B PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Notary by the respondent is before this Court seeking for issuance Qf a writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider his application at Annexure "c" dated 17. 1. 2001 requesting for grant of renewal to the post of Notary of lingsugur taluk, Raichur District contending that his appointment of the notary would be expired on 21. 1. 2001 and is entitled for renewal to the post of Notary under Section 5 of the Notaries Act of 1952. The application has not been considered by the respondent despite the fact that the same was submitted in time. Therefore the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statutory duty cast upon the respondent for consideration of the said application has not been discharged by it. Therefore he submits that this is a fit case for writ of mandamus.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in JOHN D' SOUZA vs state OF KARNATAKA1 wherein the conferment of power upon the respondent for renewal of notary is a discretionary power that cannot be indefinitely postponed. The respondent shall not indefinitely postpone his application for renewal. If the period of notary mentioned in the certificate is expired this Court has exercised discretionary power and granted the relief of continuing the notary till the consideration of the application. Therefore Learned Counsel has prayed this Court for giving direction to the respondent that petitioner may be permitted to continue as a notary. Learned Government pleader Mr. Padmanabhan submits that the application of the petitioner was not considered by the Government as it has received a complaint making certain allegations against the petitioner in discharging his duties as a Notary. They will ascertain the truth or otherwise of the complaint and pass appropriate orders after obtaining necessary report from the Jurisdictional District Judge as required under the provisions of the Act and the rules. Therefore he submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent for consideration of the application of the petitioner at Annexure "c". In so far as the relief that the petitioner shall continue and function as a Notary is concerned, he has strongly opposed that, till the consideration of his application which power is conferred upon the government under the provisions of the Act and Rules, therefore, that power has to be exercised only by that authority till that power is exercised by the respondent the petitioner shall not be permitted to discharge his duties as a Notary. After hearing the Learned government Pleader and perusing the application of the petitioner vide Annexure "c" under provisions of Section 5 of the Act, this court proceeds to pass the following order. Nodoubt that petitioner has got right of renewal of the Notary after expiry of the period on 21. 1. 2001 the respondent has not considered the application on the ground that there was a complaint against him. Since Government Pleader has submitted that his application will be considered in accordance with law after ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the complaint submitted against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it would be proper and appropriate for this Court to direct the respondent consider the application for renewal of the Notary post in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and the relevant rules framed thereunder. In so far as the other relief that was sought for the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition to continue him as Notary till pending consideration of his application is concerned, this Court cannot grant such a direction in this petition for the reason that the Apex Court in the case of M. I. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs RADHEY SHYAM sahu at paragraph 82 law has been laid down by it stating that