G. Sivarajan, J.

1. Petitioner, a notary appointed by the State Government under S.3 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') was suspended from practice as such for one year by invoking R.13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules'). The legality of the said order is under challenge.

2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner is an advocate practising at Kozhikode. He was appointed as notary on 19.7.1986. The certificate of practice was renewed from time to time and it was last renewed on 19.7.1998 (Ext. P1). The said term in the normal course expires on 18.7.2001. The notarial records of the petitioner was inspected by the competent authority on 25.11.1997. In such inspection it was noticed that the signatures in the register and the receipt book in respect of 3 items were different. The first respondent by communication dated 28.1.1998 (Ext. P2) sought explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation by letter dated 12.2.1998 (Ext. P3). Not being satisfied with the said explanation the first respondent issued notice dated 1.4.1998 asking the petitioner to show cause why action as contemplated under R.13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 should not be taken against him. The petitioner sent a reply dated 16.4.1998 (Ext. P5) explaining the discrepancy and requested to drop further action in the matter. However, the first respondent with reference to the petitioner's reply asked him to file a fresh statement of defence duly verified in the manner as a pleading in a civil court and to produce all the notary registers before the second respondent within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. The petitioner complied with the said notice and filed Ext. P7 written statement. The second respondent then issued a communication dated 28.11.1998 stating that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and the matter is now referred to the competent authority for detailed enquiry under R.13(6) of the Notaries Rules, 1956. It was also stated that the irregularities committed by the petitioner amounts to professional misconduct. The petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against him for the said irregularities. The petitioner then filed a statement on 9.12.1998. The second respondent issued notice dated 29.1.1999 (Ext. P9) asking the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 26.2.1999 and thereafter on 3.3.1999 submitted an argument note (Ext. P10) also explaining each points. The first respondent thereafter issued orders dated 27.6.2000 (Ext. P11) suspending the petitioner from practice as a notary for a period of one year from the date of the order.

3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The gists of the averments are as follows: In the periodical inspection of the notarial registers kept by the petitioner conducted by the competent authority it was noted that the signature of the executant put in the register form was patently different from the signature obtained in the receipt book. These defects are noted in Entry 45 dated 21.3.1997 (Receipt No. 1420), Entry No. 155 dated 23.9.1997 (Receipt No. 1528) and Entry No. 156 dated 23.9.1997 (Receipt No. 1529). The petitioner had admitted that the deponent has not signed the receipt book and that the petitioner had allowed the person who has accompanied the deponent to forge the signature of the deponent in the receipt instead of obtaining the specific signature of the deponent. Since the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory Ext. P4 show cause notice was issued to him. The main charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had allowed different persons to sign the register and the receipts for the same notarial action. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the competent authority as directed by the Government. The competent authority submitted a report on 1.4.2000 stating that the petitione