SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BISWANATH RATH, J.
Pravat Kumar Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 10000 of 2019, W.P. (C) No. 17987 of 2022
Decided On : 21-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.P. Mishra, D. Ray, B.S. Pattajoshi, T.K. Pattajoshi, S. Rath
For the Respondent: Sonak Mishra

The Notary's attestation of invalid documents amounts to gross misconduct under the Notaries Act, but improper procedures rendered cancellation of his practice illegal.

Headnote:(A) Notaries Act, 1952 - Sections 8(1) and 10(d) - Professional misconduct - Respondent Notary found guilty of gross misconduct for attesting invalid documents pertaining to marriage dissolution and remarriage, which are not permissible acts under the Act - Competent Authority's orders canceling his practice and removing him from the Register found unsustainable due to lack of evidence and procedural compliance. (Paras 6, 10, 18)

Table of Content
1. prayers made under respective writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts concerning the notary's registration and misconduct allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. details of complaints and responses regarding alleged professional misconduct. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. observations on inquiries and authenticity of documents in question. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. judicial reasoning on professional misconduct and legal authority of the notary. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. conclusion restoring notary's position, setting aside previous orders. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. W.P.(C) NO.10000 of 2019 involves the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and to issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned orders under Annexure-1 and 2d being illegal and arbitrary shall not be quashed and if the said opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the said rule absolute.

And further the operation of the impugned order under Annexure-1 and 2 be stayed till the disposal of the writ application.

And pass any other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems just, fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. W.P.(C) No.17987 of 2022 involves the following prayer:-

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) direct/order the Opp. Party No. 1 State Government to pass necessary Order in exercise of their power Under Rule 13(12)(a) of Notaries Rules on the basis of a fresh enquiry, being conducted by the Opp. Party No. 2, Competent Authority in accordance with the procedure established by law, within a stipulated period as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court for the interest of justice;

(ii) direct/order the Opp. Party No. 1 State Governments to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner as at Annexure-4 in accordance with law;

(iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

3. What appears here is W.P.(C) No. 10000/2019 is filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the orders of the Competent Authority, vide Annexure-1 and 2. Annexure-1 being the Notification of the Law Department dated 15.05.2019 cancelling the Certificate of Practice perpetually debarring Shri Pravat Kumar Pradhan, Notary, Kendrapara, the Petitioner having Registration No.ON-67/2009 from practicing as a Notary, w.e.f. the date of issue of the Notification. Annexure-2, the further Notification issued by the Government pursuant to the decision, vide Annexure-1 in exercise of power under Section 10 (d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 read with Rule 13(13) of the Notaries Rule, 1956 removing the name of the present Petitioner from the Register maintained under Section 4 of the Notaries Act for finding him guilty of professional misconduct and in the opinion of the Government, such act renders him unfit to practice as a Notary.

4. Subsequently, but during pendency of W.P.(C) No. 10000/2019, the Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 17987/2022 appears to be filed, as indicated hereinabove making a simple request for considering the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-4 herein, as a matter of review of the orders at Annexure-1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No. 10000/2019. This Court here observes, the outcome in W.P.(C) No. 17987/2022 remains dependent on the ultimate outcome in W.P.(C) No. 10000/2019. Thus this Court proceeds to decide the dispute involving W.P.(C) No.10000/2019.

5. Facts involving the case as briefed and submitted in course of hearing in W.P.(C) No. 10000/2019, the Petitioner, who is an advocate, was appointed also as a Notary in the district of Kendrapara having Registration No. ON/67 of 2009. While continuing as s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top