Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.8.2008 whereby petitioner's registration as Notary Public was canceled.

2. It is case where the petitioner approached Civil Court apprehending cancellation of his registration as Notary. Injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was not dismissed as the order dated 20.8.2008 was not challenged. This is precisely for the reason that the Civil Court was approached earlier to the passing of the order dated 20.8.2008, accordingly, petitioner withdrew the Civil suit and preferred this writ petitioner.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that if the provisions of Notaries Act of 1952 (in short the Act of 1952) and Notary Rules of 1956 (hereinafter referred as the Rules of 1956) are looked into, the petitioner was authorized to prepare "Moka" report and reduce it in writing. Referring to Rule 11 of Rules 1956, it is submitted that Notary can draw, attest or certify a document under his official seal which includes conveyance of properties. Similarly, he can note and certify general transactions relating to negotiable instruments. He can prepare a will or other testamentary documents and authorize to prepare affidavits for various purposes. Referring to the aforesaid, it is submitted that petitioner had prepared "Moka" report at the instructions of the one party, hence preparation of "Moka" report cannot be said to be beyond the purview of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1956. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner had prepared "Moka" report, no prejudice was caused to the either of party in view of the fact that subsequently even when Commissioner made "Moka" report pursuant to the directions of the courts, it gave similar report. Even if the act of the petitioner is still found beyond Rule 11 of Rules 1956 and Section 8 of the Act of 1952, severe punishment of removal should not have been imposed.

4. According to the petitioner, even inquiry was conducted without following provisions of Rule 13 of Rules 1956. Petitioner was given no opportu-nity of hearing. More so when first factual report is favourable to the petitioner. In view of the violation of the principle of natural justice, the order dated 20.8.2008 deserves to be set aside. This is apart from the fact that even in the order under Section 10 of the Act 1952, Government has to record the opinion showing professional misconduct. Perusal of the order does not show the aforesaid. The requirement of Sec. 10(d) has not been complied with. In view of that also, the impugned order dated 20.8.2008 deserves to be set aside.

5. It is lastly argued that if this court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order, the petitioner may be given liberty to make out his case for fresh appointment without prejudice the order under challenge.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that Rules 11 of the Rules of 1956 does not authorize petitioner to prepare "Moka" report. The preparation of "Moka" report was an unauthorized act being contrary to Rule 11 of the Rule, 1956. Looking to the complaint against him, an inquiry was conducted. Therein, charge was found proved, thus, impugned order was passed by the Government after recording its satisfaction regarding professional misconduct. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956 does not postulate an opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry. In any case the petitioner having raised all the issues before this Court, thus, instead of sending the case for post decisional hearing, issues may be decided by this court itself. It is further submitted that the Commissioner appointed by the court and submissions of report similar to what has been submitted by the petitioner does not take away his lapse to work outside the authority given to a notary. Hence the order passed by the competent authority on 20.8.2008 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. So far as the issue for fresh consideration of candidature for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document