SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Del) 9

High Court Of Delhi
OM PRAKASH JAIN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 784 of 1992
Decided On : 01/01/1993

Advocates Appeared:
J.M.Khanna, MADAN LOKUR

The Court upheld the statutory authority of Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952, to attest documents intended to take effect outside India, and held that the notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, restricting Notaries from attesting such documents, was invalid.

Headnote:

NOTARIES ACT - SECTIONS 3, 8, 10, 14 - RULES 3, 10 - APPOINTMENT, FUNCTIONS, REMOVAL OF NOTARIES - RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR RECOGNITION OF NOTARIAL ACTS - QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT - FEES - NOTIFICATION RESTRICTING NOTARIES FROM ATTESTING DOCUMENTS FOR AUTHENTICATION BY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, appointed as Notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952, challenged a notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, which restricted Notaries from attesting documents for authentication by the Ministry. The Ministry claimed that the notification was issued due to administrative difficulties in maintaining specimen signatures of numerous Notaries and to prevent fake authentications.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notification imposed an impermissible restriction on Notaries in performing their statutory duties under the Act. The Court noted that Notaries are authorized to attest documents intended to take effect outside India, and the notification effectively discouraged parties from seeking attestation from Notaries for documents to be sent to countries without reciprocal arrangements with the Central Government.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, restricting Notaries from attesting documents for authentication, was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952, particularly Sections 3, 8, 10, and 14, and Rules 3 and 10. It emphasized that Notaries are appointed under the Act to perform specific functions, including attesting documents for use outside India. The Court held that the notification went against the provisions of the Act by discouraging parties from seeking attestation from Notaries, thereby restricting their ability to perform their statutory duties.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notification and press note, and awarded costs to the petitioners.

V. B. BANSAL

( 1 ) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ, older in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other writ to quash the notification dated 31. 1. 1992, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, to the effect that only those documents will be given to the Ministry of External Affairs for authentication, which have been attested by the officers, specifically designated to do so by the State Governments.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

( 3 ) OM Prakash Jain, petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India and was registered as such under Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). P. Y. Bhagat, petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Notary by Delhi Administration on 5. 12. 1986 and their appoints are valid till date. The names of the Notaries are entered in the register and they can be removed on the grounds mentioned in Section 10 of the Act The ads, which can be performs by the Notaries have been specified in Section 8 of the Act, which include attestation and authentication of instruments intended to take effect in any country or place outside India in such form and language as may conform to the law of the place where such deed is entitled to operate and also to translate and verify the translation of any document from one language into another.

( 4 ) IT has been claimed by the petitioners that by virtue of their appointments as Notaries, they have been attesting documents which were to be submitted in foreign countries besides the documents, to be submitted to different authorities in India. They had been charging fee, as prescribed under Rule 10 of the Notary Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which have been framed by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act.

( 5 ) IT is claimed that by issuing the aforesaid letter/notification, the respondents have violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners to continue their profession and to practice as a notary under the Act and the petitioners have been deprived of their functions and thus, it has effected even their means of livelihood and thus this petition.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 have opposed this writ petition and a counter affidavit has been filed by Y. P. Singh, respondent No. 2. It has inter-alia been pleaded that the Ministry of External Affairs has been receiving complaints that a large number of fake certificates were being presented to the Ministry duly authenticated by the Notaries Public since there were as many as 14000 notaries public all over India and the Ministry of External Affairs is not in a position to maintain their specimen signatures. It was also claimed that the Consular Section is too under staffed and unable to take the responsibility of maintaining upto date specimen signatures of thousands of notary public. It was also claimed that most of the Indian citizens in need of authentication of documents were those seeking jobs and therefore, fraud has serious implication on job prospects of such persons and that the documents received in the morning were being authenticated and returned to the applicants the same day. It has also been claimed that the Ministry of External Affairs was under no obligation to grant authentication merely because a document has been notarised and even otherwise, it was impossible to maintain signatures of about 14,000 notaries public. Further averments made in the counter have been that some notary public have falsely been claiming that they have been recognized by the Ministry of External Affairs while there was no such recognition by the Ministry of External Affairs and that there have been fake authentications which have come to the notice of the Government of India. It has, thus, been pleaded that the impugned order has been issued keeping in view the con











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top