P JOHN SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to G. O. Ms. No. 445 Law Department dated 21-8-1997 and quash the same.

(2.) FROM the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition what comes to be known is that the petitioner got enrolled himself in the year 1968 and his Enrolment Number is 213/68; that after initial practice of three years in the High Court of Madras, he has been practicing in the Courts at Saidapet thereafter; that he was appointed as a Notary and authorised to practice in the city of Madras with effects from 4-12-1990 in G. O. Ms. No. 404 Law Department, dated 4-12-1990 and renewed for a further period of three years; the allegation against the petitioner was that two, twenty rupees non-judicial stamps each with the signature and seal of the petitioner-Notary with an expression 'signed before me' were seized from the Document Writer, A. V. Sundarajan kept for his misuse; that the said acts of the petitioner would amount to infraction of the provisions contained in Rule 11 (8) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and it would also amount to misconduct; the petitioner filed a written statement of defence dated 28-12-1995; that the Government by letter dated 2-4-1996 caused an inquiry to be made into the matter by the competent authority, namely, the Principal Judge, City Civil court, Chennai; that after holding inquiry in the matter, learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court would submit his report to the Government stating that there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the delinquent Notary had handed over two blank stamp papers for the value of Rs. 20/-each with his signature and also affixing the seal of the Notary to the said A. V. Sundararajan, Document Writer, for misuse and it is a violation of Rule 11 (8) of the Notaries Rules 1956 and the act of the delinquent would amount to misconduct and further held that the charges framed against the delinquent is proved; that based on the report of the competent authority, the Government has cancelled the petitioner's Certificate of Practice as Notary and perpetually de-barred the petitioner from practising as Notary and under Section 10 (d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 the petitioner's name has been removed from the Registry of the Notaries and hence, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition with a prayer extracted supra.

(3.) THE first respondent filed his counter affidavit and would submit that the petitioner was appointed as 'notary in the City of Madras, for a period of three years with effect from 4-12-1990 and was issued a certificate of practice; that when the Deputy Superintendent, Special Vigilance Cell, Registration Department, Chennai, 28 inspected the office of one A. V. Sundararajan, Document Writer, it was found that certain blank stamp papers bearing the signature and seal of the petitioner, namely Mr. P. John Samuel, Advocate and Notary were kept, so as to misuse the same and the said stamp papers were seized by the Vigilance Cell Officers and were forwarded to the Government for taking appropriate action under profes sional mis-conduct against the said Notary; that under sub-rule (4a) of Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, a statement specifying the charge against the petitioner Advocate was sent to the petitioner Notary, to offer his statement of defence in letter No. 18508/admn/94-2, Law dated 31-7-1995; that after examining the defence sent by the petitioner in his letter dated 28-12-1995, it has been decided that there is prima facie case against the said Notary and the statement of defence together with the complaint made against the said petitioner Notary, were sent to the competent authority, viz. Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Government Letter No. 18508/ammn/94-5, dated 2-4-1996 for conducting an inquiry into the matter and furnishing his report as required under sub-rule (5) of the said Rule 13; that in respect of allegation made against the petitioner-Advocate, the competent authority after holding a detailed enquiry, in his letter in Dis. No. 5068/97 HC II, dated 29-5-1997 had reported that there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the delinquent notary had handed over two blank stamp papers of the value of Rs. 20/-each with his signature and also the seal of the notary to A. V. Sundarajan, Document Writer, for misuse and it is a violation of Rule 11 (8) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and the act of the delinquent would amount to misconduct and the competent authority held that the charge framed against the delinquent was proved, that therefore, the Government after considering the report of the competent authority, in G. O. Ms. No. 445,. Law, dated 21-8-1997 have ordered cancelling the certificate of practice of the said advocate thus perpetually debarring the said notary from practice and it is only against the said cancellation, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition which has no merits and ultimately on such grounds the first respondent would pray for the dismissal of the above writ petition.