MAHABIR PARSHAD GOYAL ADVOCATE Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HARYANA ADMINISTRATION AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, An Advocate, is aggrieved by the action of the State of Haryana in not renewing his licence and in ordering the removal of his name from the Register of 'notary Public' of Sirsa district (Annexure P-8 ). A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner's, name brought on the Register of Notaries maintained under Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter refered to as the Act ). In the year 1985, a certificate of practice issued to the petitioner was renewed for a term of 3 years which was to expire on January 12, 1988. The petitioner avers that he suffered an injury in the right eye. He had to undergo surgery for an intra ocular lense transplantation. He was admitted to the hospital at Amritsar for about 15 days. Thereafter he was under treatment at Dr. Sangwan's Clinic at Sirsa. On account of the indisposition, the petitioner claims that delay occurred in the deposit of the requisite fee of Rs. 25/- for the renewal on his licence to practice. The deposit which should have been made on or before January 12, 1988 was in fact made on May 25, 1988. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner had submitted the requisite medical certificate, the Government vide its order dated June 19, 1989 decided to remove the name from the Register of Notaries Public of Sirsa district (Annexure P-8 ). Thereafter, vide letter dated July 17, 1989, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa requested the Government to issue a notification under the Notary Rules of 1956 removing the name of the petitioner from the Registrar of Notaries. It appears before the issue of the notification, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court on August 22, 1989. The Motion Bench while admitting the petition passed an order of ad-interim stay. The interim order of stay was confirmed by the learned Single Judge on February 7, 1990. As a result, the petitioner appears to have continued to practice as Notary.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been pleaded that the petitioner has failed to deposit the requisite fee in time for the renewal of his certificate and as such he cannot be allowed the benefit of his own wrong. It is maintained that the petitioner was under a mandatory legal obligation to apply for the renewal of the certificate before its date of expiry and his failure to do so estops him from challenging the impugned order. It has also been maintained that the petitioner was not entitled to practice after the expiry of his term and that his action in doing so renders him liable to action/prosecution under the Act and the Rules It is also maintained that no show cause notice or opportunity is required to be given before refusing to renew the licence.