V.M. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LAW DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a practising Advocate in the City of Madras for more than 20 years. He was appointed as notary in G.O.Ms.No.261 Law Department dated 1.7.91. On 2.1.96 at the request of Thiru S.A.Rajan, another practising Advocate in the City of Madras having his chamber at No.165, Law Chambers, High Court, Madras, the petitioner attested an affidavit sworn by one Thiru V.Krishnan. In order to introduce the said V.Krishnan, Thiru S.A.Rajan, Advocate gave a letter identifying the deponent of the affidavit so as to enable the petitioner to attest the said document. Subsequent to the same, it appears that one Thiru A.Venkatesan lodged a complaint on 5.6.96 before the Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Madras against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had attested a fabricated document namely the affidavit which the petitioner attested on 2.1.96. In the complaint it was alleged that the affidavit was signed on 13.12.95 but the stamp paper was purchased on 19.12.95 and the same was attested on 2.1.96. The said complaint was forwarded by the Government to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai who is the competent authority to conduct an enquiry under Rule 13 of Notaries Rules, 1956. The competent authority after conducting an enquiry ultimately found that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner in attesting the said affidavit but, there was a negligence on the part of the petitioner in not verifying the date of the document and the date on which it was signed by the deponent, and also there was no identification to the document. On such finding, a report was submitted by the competent authority to the Government. On considering the said report, the Government also accepted that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner in attesting the document on 2.1.96 as alleged by the complainant, but the Government found negligence on the part of the petitioner in so far as the petitioner did not verify the date of the stamp paper and the date on which the affidavit was signed to by the deponent as well as the document was not identified by any Advocate. Hence, by exercising the power under Rule 13(12)(b)(i) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") the Government passed orders for cancellation of the certificate of practice and perpetually debarred the petitioner as notary. By the same order, by exercising the power under Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Government also directed the removal of the name of the petitioner from the register of Notaries. The said order of the Government made in G.O.Ms.No.510 Law Department dated 9.10.97 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) MR .M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would challenge the said order on the following grounds: -

(3.) THE Notaries Act, 1952 (Act No.53 of 1952) was enacted to regulate the profession of notaries whose names are entered in the register under Section 5 of "the Act". Following are some of the relevant provisions which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition and the same are as under: -