BHARATBHAI MANIBHAI DHOLAKIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practising lawyer at Bhuj. He was registered as Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It is the case of the petitioner that since 14.8.1988 he has been practising as Notary. It appears that on 12.10.2000, the period of registration was expiring. However, it is the case of the petitioner that on 26.1.2001, because of the devastating earth-quake the office and the residence of the petitioner was badly damaged and was classified as "G-5" category i.e. the building which cannot be used for residential purpose even after renovation. It is also the case of the petitioner that the entire office records including the certificate of the Notary were under debris and the petitioner had also to go out of the country in capacity as the District Governor, Rotary International. On 7.8.2002, the petitioner found that he had to forward the application for renewal. However, the renewal application was not submitted and, therefore, he forwarded the application for renewal. A copy of the said application dated 8.8.2002 is produced at Annexure "B" to the petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that as he was not aware about the expiry of the period of registration, in bonafide he has worked as Notary in the Bar Association camps held for helping the earth-quake affected persons for claiming the reliefs etc. However, after 8.8.2002 onwards he has not worked as Notary since it came to his knowledge that the renewal application was to be forwarded and there is a lapse on his part. It appears that thereafter there was further reminder by the petitioner on 11.11.2003, but as no decision was rendered by the State Government, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring this petition.

(3.) On behalf of the State Government, affidavit-in-reply is filed by H.T.Vyas, Jt. Secretary, Legal Department, wherein it has been, inter alia, contended that as per the Circular dated 6.1.1997 issued by the Legal Department of the State Government the application for renewal of the certificate was required to be submitted within one month prior to the expiry of the term of the certificate and together with the same prescribed fee was also required to be submitted. The petitioner has remained negligent towards his duties for making application after the expiry of the period. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has no vested right for renewal of the certificate mechanically without considering the worthiness of the renewal of the certificate and it has been prayed to dismiss the petition as the petitioner is not entitled to the relief.