2009 Supreme(Raj) 2572
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
Asha Bhansali and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 15119 of 2009 and 61 Ors..
Decided On : 18-12-2009
For the Petitioners:Mahesh Sharma, Munish Kumar Sharma, S.K. Gupta, Sudarshan Laddha, Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Pushpendra Pal Singh, Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Gajendra Singh Rathore, Sharad Purohit, Raunak Singhvi, Narendra Singh Dhaka, R.K. Mathur, Ajay Kumar Bajpai, Ram Kuamr Sharma, Omveer Singh Saini, Amit Singh Shekhawat, Susheel Sharma, Arvind Kumar Pareekm Sanjay Kumar Sharma and M.K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents:N.A. Naqvi, Addl. Advocate General and S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Government Counsel.
The Government's discretion to renew notary certificates under Section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952, and Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956, must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law, considering the individual circumstances of each applicant.
Headnote:
NOTARIES ACT, 1952 - SECTION 5(2), 10 - NOTARIES RULES, 1956 - RULE 8B - RENEWAL OF NOTARY CERTIFICATE - COURT QUASHES GOVERNMENT ORDER DENYING RENEWAL, DIRECTS FRESH CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956, filed applications for renewal of their certificates of practice. The Government, citing amendments to the Act and Rules, decided not to renew any licenses and invited applications for fresh appointments. Petitioners challenged the denial of renewal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendments cited by the Government were for fresh appointments and not for renewal. It found that the Government's decision not to renew licenses was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, as the discretion to renew certificates should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendments to the Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956, affected the renewal of notary certificates. 2. Whether the Government's decision not to renew notary licenses was in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952, and Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which provide for the renewal of notary certificates. It held that the discretion granted to the Government to renew certificates should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Court found that the Government's decision not to renew licenses was based on a decision that was contrary to the law and did not consider the individual circumstances of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions, quashed the Government's orders denying renewal of notary certificates, and directed the Government to decide the applications for renewal afresh, considering the provisions of Section 10 of the Act and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicants.
JUDGMENT
1. - In all the above writ petitions, common question of law on the basis of similar facts is involved, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order while taking into consideration facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15119/2009, Smt. Asha Bhansali v. State of Rajasthan & Others .
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Notary under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter, to be called "the Act of 1952") and Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter, to be called "the Rules of 1956"). The petitioner was authorised to practise as Notary in Jaipur city for a period of five years. Said order/certificate of authorisation was issued on 28.07.2003. As per the petitioner, she was authorised to practise throughout Jaipur city and as per the provisions for renewal, before the expiry of the time, an application was moved by the petitioner on 07.07.2008 for renewal of the term as Notary and she has deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 500/-.
3. After submitting the application for renewal, the Deputy Secretary, Law, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur sent letter to the District Judge, Jaipur requiring certain information about petitioner with regard to renewal of her licence. The District Judge, Jaipur City sent communication on 13.08.2008 to the petitioner to furnish relevant record and register. After receiving the said communication, the petitioner produced all relevant record but, all of a sudden, the petitioner received communication dated 13.11.2009, Annex.-6, in which, the petitioner was intimated about amendments made from time to time in the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956 and, further, the petitioner was directed to stop the work of Notary with immediate effect since the State Government has decided not to renew the authorisation certificate of the petitioner as Notary. The petitioner has placed on record the said communication dated 13.11.2009.
4. In the communication dated 13.11.2009, it is stated that a decision has been taken by the Government as per relevant amendment in the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956 not to renew the Notary authorisation certificate and petitioner has been restrained from working as Notary with immediate effect.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the order impugned dated 13.11.2009 submits that there is complete procedure laid down in the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956 to renew the licence after completion of the relevant formalities by the existing Notary. The removal can be made from the register by the Government as per Section 10 of the Act of 1952 and as per Section 5(2) of the Act, the Government appointing the Notary, may, on receipt of application and prescribed fee, is under obligation to renew the certificate of any Notary for a period of five years at a time.
6. Further, there is power left with the Central Government under Section 15 to frame rules for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary; and, in exercise of power conferred under Section 15, rules were framed known as Notaries Rules, 1956, according to which, procedure is laid down for entertaining application for appointment of Notary under Rule 8. Under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1956, there is procedure for depositing fee for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary.
7. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has deposited Rs. 500/- and filed application within time for renewal, therefore, State Government was under obligation to renew the certificate of notary in favour of the petitioner. Of course, name of any candidate can be removed at any stage by the Government under Section 10 from the register upon certain grounds which are not in existence in this case. The State Government has arbitrarily rejected the application filed by the petitioner for renewal, that too, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned suffered from arbitrariness and illegality. As such, it is prayed t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
