Important Point
Irrationality breeds unreasonableness.

By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the State Government canceling the certificate of the petitioner to practice as a Notary.

2. A mismatch in the pleadings and the prayer was noticed at the outset. In paragraph 2 of the petition, what is averred is that the order under challenge is of canceling the certificate as Notary and further perpetually debarring the petitioner to practice as Notary. The impugned order however provides for the penalty only of cancellation of the certificate. The case and contentions of the petitioner in the present petition therefore have been considered in light of the said factual position.

3. The petitioner’s case in the petition is that he has been an advocate-cum-notary in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. He was granted certificate with effect from 27.02.2009 under the Notarys Act, 1952 to practice as a Notary for a period of five years throughout Ahmedabad Taluka/City of Ahmedabad District. One Shakriben Bhikhabhai Patel, resident of Ahmedabad, sent a notice dated 12/14.10.2010 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was careless, while notarizing the signatures in the execution of a declaration on 13.08.2009; the said declaration deed, was signed by three persons, (i) Lilaben Dahyabhai Patel, (ii) Shakriben Bhikhabhai Patel and (iii) Vijayaben Kantilal Patel on the aforesaid date. The petitioner alleged to have identified the said three persons though they were allegedly not present. According to said complainant of Shakriben, the fact of their signatures identified in their absence came to their knowledge when the said declaration was presented somewhere between February, 2010 to August, 2010. It was stated that the copy was obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3.1 Petitioner filed reply dated 26.10.2010 denying the allegations. The petitioner in his reply stated about investigation done by the Satellite Police Station and also mentioned about a Civil Suit filed by the said three sisters in respect of the property in question to submit that he was not at fault but was falsely involved with allegations. It appears that yet another communication dated 27.10.2010 was sent stating inter alia that explanation given by the petitioner was not acceptable to said Shakriben and other persons concerned.

3.2 It appears that a copy of aforesaid notice of Patel Shakriben came to be sent to the office of the Secretary, Legal Department-respondent No.1 herein and on the basis of which Legal Department issued show cause notice dated 11.04.2011 calling upon the petitioner-Notary to give his explanation in respect of the allegations levelled. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 11.05.2011 and also enclosed therewith a copy of the reply, which the petitioner had given to the earlier notice sent by the complainant to reply on its contents. It appears that by letter dated 20.06.2011, the petitioner was asked to remain present before the competent authority on 30.06.2011. The petitioner at that stage on 24.01.2012 again made written submissions. The petitioner made further submissions on 19.03.2012 to point out that during the police investigation also, no irregularity was attributed to the petitioner-Notary.

3.3 The petitioner at that time had an occasion to file Special Civil Application No.5978 of 2012 before this Court. That petition came to be disposed of by order dated 29.11.2012 and was allowed to the extent that the Court directed the authorities to issue fresh notice and take out a de novo proceedings. Pursuant to the said order, a notice dated 15.03.2013 came to be issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit explanation within 14 days. The petitioner prayed for time, further notices were issued by the authority to the petitioner; a notice dated 13.12.2013 was also issued to said Patel Shakriben to remain present and represent the case. Similar notices were issued to other