RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a licence of a notary by the appropriate Government un-der the Notaries Rules, 1956 for a period of five years, which was to expire on 17th Feb-ruary, 2010. Prior to its expiry, the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence on 12th January, 2010. The said application was re-jected by the authority by an order dated 9th February, 2010 indicating that the petitioner had not complied with Rule 8B of the Nota-ries Rules, 1956 and that the delay in filing the application for renewal of the licence was not explained by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made an appropriate representation explaining the delay for not filing the appli-cation within the stipulated period. This ap-plication was again rejected by the appro-priate authority by its order dated 13th Janu-ary, 2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating their stand. The respondents submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and that the rea-sons were not given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application for renewal of his licence. The genesis of the controversy raised in the petition requires the interpreta-tion of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956. For facility, the said provision is quoted here-under :