FIROZ M BATTIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the State Government rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of the certificate to practise as a Notary.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :- In the year 1987 the petitioner was appointed as Notary by the Government of Gujarat. The certificate to practise as a Notary was renewed from time to time. The last certificate which was issued to the petitioner was for the period from 23-4-1996 to 22-4-1999. The petitioner applied for renewal of the certificate on 30-6-1999 and also paid Rs. 500.00 as renewal fees by money order. The petitioner in his application had submitted that on account of illness and death of his mother-in-law, he could not prefer the application before the expiry of the period of certificate. On 24-9-1999 the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish certain information regarding notary work carried out by him after the expiry of term of Notary i.e. 22-4-1999. The petitioner submitted information ultimately. By the impugned order dated 31-12-1999 the competent authority rejected the application for renewal of Notary Certificate on the ground that there is no valid reason to condone the delay. It is against the aforesaid order that the present petition is filed.

(3.) Mr. Ketan Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions :- (i) Neither the Notaries Act nor the Rules prescribe any period of limitation for making an application for renewal. Hence, the petitioner's application could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. (ii) In any case, the petitioner had given a valid reason for submitting the application for renewal after the expiry of the period of the certificate. As per the provisions of Sec. 5(2) of the Notaries Act, the petitioner was entitled to have certificate of practice renewed for a period of three years at a time and the authority had no discretion to reject the application on the ground of delay. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Madras in S. Ramanarayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1997 (2) CTC 443, a copy whereof is produced at the time of hearing of this petition.