The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of proceedings and the impugned order must comply with the mandatory provisions of the Notaries Act and Rules, failing which they may be vitiated and without jurisdiction.

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification as contained in Memo No. A/Note-Legal-76/2003-888/J, Ranchi dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure-5) whereby the petitioner's application for renewal of certificate to practice as a Notary, has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner has been perpetually debarred from practising as a Notary.

2. the petitioner is a legal practitioner in Giridih District Court and was appointed as a Notary under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') by notification dated 26.4.97 issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-1).

3. After expiry of the said period, the certificate for practicing as Notary was further renewed.

4. The petitioner has claimed that he had been discharging his duties as a Notary properly and there was nothing adverse against him since April 1997.

5. For the first time, notice to show cause dated 13.9.06 was issued to the petitioner under the signature of the Secretary, Legal (Justice) Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish explanation about the alleged irregularities reported by the Secretary of the Department on his surprise visit on 26.6.06, which were as follows: (i) Notary Register was not being maintained in accordance with Rule 15. (ii) Signature of the parties were not obtained in the register. (iii) Money receipts were not issued to the parties and as such there was no entry of receipt number in the register. (iv) The fee taken from the parties were not entered in the register. (v) The prescribed fee for notarial work was not mentioned. (vi) The rate of notarial fee was not displayed at the conspicuous place of the Notary Office. (vii) Column-II of the entry register was not properly maintained. (viii) At the time of inspection on 26.6.06, the petitioner had escaped with notary register and did not return even after a long waiting.

6. The petitioner filed his explanation to the show cause notice as follows:

(i) He maintains the notary register in accordance with Rule 15(ii) The signature of the parties were obtained in the notary register. (iii) However, the person who had got the notarial work done but their signature were not found in the register at the time of inspection by the District & Sessions Judge, Giridih, have been requested to put their signature which will be obtained. (iv) Only the prescribed fee for notarial work are being realized in accordance with the guidelines, but since there was no practice since long for issuing the money receipt, the receipt was not issued and on receiving the guidelines, arrangement is being made for issuing the money receipt and mentioning the number of receipt in the notary register. (v) All the notarial works are being discharged in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. (vi) Fee for all the notarial works have been prescribed and only the fee prescribed for the works is taken. (vii) In Column II of the Notary Register signature of the petitioner on some places were missing, but the same was not intentional. The same could not be immediately done due to rush of the work and seizure of the register by the Inspecting Officer. The petitioner had taken the Notary Register for getting a Xerox copy of the Register in order to hand over the Original as required, but due to a long electrical power cut, the petitioner had to wait for the said purpose and by the time electricity was restored and he could get the Xeroxed copy and returned to submit the same, the Inspecting Officer had already left the place. The petitioner has expressed his regret for his inability to provide Xe-rox copy of the register due to the said reason beyond his control.

7. Some time after the submission of the said reply, the petitioner received Annexure-5 dated 16.4.07 whereby prayer for renewal of his license to practice as a Notary has been rejected and his name has been