RAIS KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dt. 22/6/09 passed by President, Grievance Redressal Authority, Sardar Sarovar Project. The contention of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a notary by Government of India on 22/1/08 and since then he is discharging his duties as a notary strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Notaries Act 1952 read with the Notaries Rules 1956. The Petitioner has further stated that one Smt. Parvati Bai approached the Petitioner on 26/5/09 for swearing an affidavit and the Petitioner has explained the contents of the affidavit of Smt. Parvati Bai and after explaining the contents of the affidavit on 26/5/09, the same was notarised. The Petitioner has further stated that Smt. Parvati Bai preferred a complaint before the Registrar, Sardar Sarovar Grievances Redressal Forum and the complaint of Smt. Parvati Bai was rejected by the Registrar, Sardar Sarovar Grievances Redressal Forum in the matter of grant of compensation. The Petitioner has further stated that the President, Grievances Redressal Forum while deciding the appeal of Smt. Parvati Bai i.e., appeal No. 365/07 has observed that the Petitioner while notarising the affidavit of Smt. Parvati Bai has not stated in the affidavit that the contents of the affidavit were explained to her and therefore the Petitioner has executed the affidavit in a most carelessness manner. The Petitioners grievances is that the President has directed action against the Petitioner in the matter and thereafter on the basis of the order passed in appeal, the State Government though is not the appropriate government has issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/2) dated 23/2/10. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the show cause notice as well as the observation made against him in order dated 3/6/09 passed by the President, Grievances Redressal Forum, Sardar Sarovar Project. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in, 2001 AIR(SC) 93 and his contention is that the apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that in case any adverse remarks are made against a person, he should have been given an opportunity of hearing, as such adverse remarks are strictures resulting in serious consequences on future carrier of the person concerned. A reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent State and contention of the Respondent State is that the action initiated by the State Government is in consonance with the statutory provisions as contained under the Notaries Rules 1956 and they have rightly issued a show cause notice under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules 1956. The Respondents have also stated that the Petitioner while notarising the affidavit of one Smt. Parvati Bai has not explained the contents of the affidavit to Smt. Parvati Bai and the same finds place in the order passed by the President dated 3/6/09. The Respondents have further stated that they have taken the action against the Petitioner rightly keeping in view the order passed by the President and no case for interference is made out in the mater.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(3.) In the present case the Petitioner before this Court was appointed as a Notary by Government of India on 22nd January 2008. It is needleas to mention that the Petitioner was not appointed by the State Government. The Notaries Rules 1956 defines the appropriate Government and the definition clause i.e., Section 2(a) defines the appropriate Government as under: