Important Point - It is not in dispute before us that no inquiry was caused to be made as contemplated under Rule 13(6) and neither was the Petitioner given a right to defend himself before the Competent Authority either in person or through a legal practitioner or any other Notary.

B.P. Colabawalla, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records and papers pertaining to the impugned order dated 15th December, 2016 and after considering the legality and propriety thereof, to quash the same.

3. The Petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court since 1971 and is also a Notary Public since 2004 appointed by the Central Government of India. Respondent No.1 is the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice. Respondent No.2 is the Deputy Legal Advisor, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell) and is the authority that has passed the impugned order cancelling the Petitioner's “Certificate of Practice as Notary”. It is the case of the Petitioner that this impugned order is in clear violation of the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was enrolled as an Advocate of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 24th March 1971. On 27th January 2004, the Petitioner was appointed as a Notary Public by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi. Thereafter, the Petitioner's Certificate of Practice as Notary was renewed in 2009 and later in 2014 for a period of five years each.

5. On 1st April 2014, one Mr Hubert Fonseca, Mrs. Faustya Satyasilan and Mr Anil Kumar approached the Petitioner and requested him to notarize an Agreement for Sale dated 1st April, 2014. According to the Petitioner, he verified the identities and the photos from the original PAN cards produced for his scrutiny of these persons and thereafter notarized the said Agreement dated 1st April, 2014 by affixing his seal and signature thereon. The Petitioner also arranged for the details to be entered in the Notary Register and obtained the signatures of the parties in the Notary Register. It is the case of the Petitioner that due to an inadvertent mistake, the Petitioner's intern entered the same No.2043 as that of the earlier entry in the page and also incorrectly entered the date as 1.4.2015 instead of 1.4.2014. Thereafter, the entry number was corrected by adding “A” i.e. “2043-A”.

6. Be that as it may, in March 2016 the Petitioner was visited by the said Mr Hubert J. Fonseca alongwith a lady friend Savita Burges at his residence asking him to furnish an affidavit stating that the aforesaid Agreement for Sale dated 1st April, 2014 was a fabricated document. The said Mr Fonseca threatened the Petitioner that he would file a Police Complaint against the Petitioner if he failed to give him an affidavit as required by him. According to the Petitioner, he refused to give such affidavit and pointed out that the parties to the said Agreement for Sale had approached him on 1st April, 2014 to notarize the said Agreement which was already executed by the parties and that after verifying the identity of the parties, he had notarized the said Agreement for Sale.

7. Thereafter, on 21st July 2016, a Police Officer from Bandra Police Station handed over to the Petitioner a notice dated 20th July, 2016 which informed the Petitioner that the said Mr Fonseca had filed a complaint against the said Mr Anil Kumar Janardhan Prasad and Fausta Sathyasilan regarding the Agreement for Sale dated 1st April, 2014. The Police Officer called upon the Petitioner to provide him a true copy of the Notary Entry No.2043-A relating to the said Agreement.

8. Be that as it may, on 12th September, 2016 the Petitioner received a notice dated 1st September, 2016 from Respondent No.2 stating therein that a complaint had been received from the said Hubert Fonseca making serious allegations against the Petitioner and therefore called upon him to submit his explanation within 14 days.