The judgment establishes that the inquiry process under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 is mandatory, and failure to provide the statement of charges to the Notary deprives them of the right to defend against alleged professional misconduct.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the name of petitioner is removed from Register of Notaries maintained under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”).

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 01.04.1996 by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. He was appointed as a Notary on 30.11.2010 and his place of practice is throughout Tahsil Konta, District – Sukma. The Certificate of Notary was issued for a period of five years, which was renewed on 15.12.2015. Petitioner again submitted an application for renewal of Certificate of Notary before the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 along with requisite fees. Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 01.12.2021 to respondent No.3 stating that perusal of register maintained by petitioner it revealed that entry at Sr. No.76, 82, 97, 99, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 138, 139 and 149 of the register, thumb impression have not been attested and called reply from the petitioner. In turn respondent No.3 issued letter/memo on 14.02.2022 to which petitioner submitted reply accepting the mistake pleading that it is a first mistake and offered apology and requested for renewal of the Notary Certificate and thereafter, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 02.06.2022 is issued.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is passed in contravention of provisions under Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1956”). No inquiry was conducted as envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that authorities have only considered that thumb impression of the relevant entries as mentioned above was not attested but have not taken into consideration the period in which the entry was made i.e. period of Covid-19 pandemic. Petitioner has fairly admitted the mistake committed by him and has also offered his apology in the return/reply submitted. He also contended that as proceedings of enquiry is initiated suo motu under Rule 13 (4A), the appropriate Government ought to have sent a statement specifying the charge or charges along with oral and documentary evidence relied upon in support of the charge or charges, which was not complied with and therefore, the petitioner was deprived with his right to defend as provided under Sub-rule 9 of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956.

4. Learned counsel for State opposing the submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that while considering the application for renewal along with supported documents it revealed that petitioner has committed misconduct, therefore, a letter was issued to respondent No.3 mentioning as to why not the name of petitioner be removed from the Notary Register on account of shortcomings found in the register maintained by petitioner and in turn respondent No.3 has asked for explanation from petitioner, in which petitioner admitted that thumb impression was not attested in the register which is a first mistake and has tendered his apology. After receipt of reply submitted by petitioner, respondent No.3 forwarded it to respondent No.1. Thereafter, the order (Annexure P-1) is passed, which is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that some mistake was committed in not attesting the thump impression as mentioned in the aforementioned entries of register and petitioner tendered his apology and the order Annexure P-1 is passed in contravention of provision under Section 10 (d) of the Act of 1952 and the Rules of 1956.

7. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I find it ap