ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.8.2008 whereby Petitioner's registration as Notary Public was canceled.

(2.) It is case where the Petitioner approached Civil Court apprehending cancellation of his registration as Notary. Injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was not dismissed as the order dated 20.8.2008 was not challenged. This is precisely for the reason that the Civil Court was approached earlier to the passing of the order dated 20.8.2008, accordingly, Petitioner withdrew the Civil suit and preferred this writ Petitioner.

(3.) The counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the provisions of Notaries Act of 1952 (in short the Act of 1952) and Notary Rules of 1956 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1956) are looked into, the Petitioner was authorized to prepare "Moka" report and reduce it in writing. Referring to Rule 11 of Rules 1956, it is submitted that Notary can draw, attest or certify a document under his official seal which includes conveyance of properties. Similarly, he can note and certify general transactions relating to negotiable instruments. He can prepare a will or other testamentary documents and authorize to prepare affidavits for various purposes. Referring to the aforesaid, it is submitted that Petitioner had prepared "Moka" report at the instructions of the one party, hence preparation of "Moka" report cannot be said to be beyond the purview of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956. It is further submitted that even if the Petitioner had prepared "Moka" report, No. prejudice was caused to the either of party in view of the fact that subsequently even when Commissioner made "Moka" report pursuant to the directions of the courts, it gave similar report. Even if the act of the Petitioner is still found beyond Rule 11 of Rules 1956 and Section 8 of the Act of 1952, severe punishment of removal should not have been imposed.