ADITYA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dtd. 2/6/2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the name of petitioner is removed from Register of Notaries maintained under Sec. 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952").

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 1/4/1996 by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. He was appointed as a Notary on 30/11/2010 and his place of practice is throughout Tahsil Konta, District - Sukma. The Certificate of Notary was issued for a period of five years, which was renewed on 15/12/2015. Petitioner again submitted an application for renewal of Certificate of Notary before the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 along with requisite fees. Respondent No.1 issued a letter dtd. 1/12/2021 to respondent No.3 stating that perusal of register maintained by petitioner it revealed that entry at Sr. No.76, 82, 97, 99, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 138, 139 and 149 of the register, thumb impression have not been attested and called reply from the petitioner. In turn respondent No.3 issued letter/memo on 14/2/2022 to which petitioner submitted reply accepting the mistake pleading that it is a first mistake and offered apology and requested for renewal of the Notary Certificate and thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dtd. 2/6/2022 is issued.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is passed in contravention of provisions under Sec. 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1956"). No inquiry was conducted as envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that authorities have only considered that thumb impression of the relevant entries as mentioned above was not attested but have not taken into consideration the period in which the entry was made i.e. period of Covid-19 pandemic. Petitioner has fairly admitted the mistake committed by him and has also offered his apology in the return/reply submitted. He also contended that as proceedings of enquiry is initiated suo motu under Rule 13 (4A), the appropriate Government ought to have sent a statement specifying the charge or charges along with oral and documentary evidence relied upon in support of the charge or charges, which was not complied with and therefore, the petitioner was deprived with his right to defend as provided under Sub-rule 9 of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956.