F.C. JAIN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner Shri Fattuchand Jain was removed from the Notary Register under provisions of Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act, 1952').

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Notary by order dated 8th January, 2003 (Annexure P-l) for a period of five years. THE petitioner applied for renewal of certificate of Notary on 15th October, 2007 (Annexure P-2). THE petitioner received the impugned order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner was removed from the Notary Register under the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Act, 1952, on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not fit to perform the work of Notary.

(3.) PER contra, Shri Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that a complaint was made by Balod Tehsil Adhivakta Sangh on 11th October, 2006 (Annexure R-1) that the petitioner was not a member of the Bar Association of Balod and he had concealed this fact that the time of his appointment. An enquiry was conducted by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg. In his report dated 11th May, 2007 (Annexure R-2), it was found that the complaint made against the petitioner were true and correct on certain issues. The State Government, by letter dated 19th June, 2007, requested the District & Sessions Judge, to submit a report after examining all the issues as the enquiry report dated 11th May, 2007 did not digcuss all the points. Second report dated 18th February, 2008 (Annexure R-4) was submitted. On the basis of the report dated 18th February, a show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2008 (Annexure R-5) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response to the show-cause notice on 5th April, 2008 (Annexure R-6) admitting his misconduct. After having considered the report submitted by the Additional District Judge and the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The order is legal, just and proper and has been passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.