KRISHAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case projects a classical example of poverty's powerlessness.

(2.) The petitioner is an Advocate and is above seventy years of age. He in essence is a non practicing/non-professional Advocate. In order to earn livelihood, he applied to the competent authority for grant of certificate of practice as Notary under The Notaries Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952) and The Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules of 1956). The competent authority, after considering the application of the petitioner and after entering into satisfaction in accordance with the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1956, issued the certificate of practice in favour of the petitioner on 14th day of January, 1993. Since nothing adverse was brought to the notice of the competent authority against the petitioner, certificate of practice was renewed in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act of 1952 at regular intervals.

(3.) Petitioner was working as Notary in the office premises of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is stated at the Bar that office of the Custodian Evacuee Property is also located at a short distance from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. Petitioner, who was earning his livelihood by practicing as a Notary Public was deprived of the sole source of sustenance by issuance of notification SRO 391 dated 21.12.2009 whereunder the competent authority in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Section 10 of the Act of 1952 read with Sub Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956 removed the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries maintained under Section 4 of the Act of 1952. It is this notification as also the report of respondent no. 3 dated 03.11.2009 and the show cause notice issued by respondent no. 2 dated 18.11.2009 which are sought to be declared as null and void, non-est and against the provisions of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1956.