By the Court.—By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the State Government cancelling his appointment as Notary and removing his name from the Notary Register in exercise of the power conferred under Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (in short the Act).

2. We have heard Sri W.H.Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.

3. Respondent No. 3, despite notice, did not choose to enter appearance.

4. The short fact giving rise to the present controversy are as under :

The petitioner was appointed as Public Notary vide order dated 23.3.1995. Respondent No. 3 made a complaint dated 14.1.1997 alleging various irregularities committed by the petitioner before this Court. The Vigilance Department of this Court forwarded the complaint to the District Judge, Mahoba for necessary enquiry and to submit report. Subsequently, reminder dated 22.7.1998 was also sent. The District Judge, Mahoba enquired into the matter and submitted report dated 26.4.1999 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and forwarded the same to the State Government whereupon the State Government after having considered the report, passed the impugned order removing him as Public Notary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed without following the provisions prescribed by the Act and Rules framed thereunder for the removal of Public Notary. It is submitted that under Rule 13(1) of the Rules the enquiry into the misconduct of a Notary can be initiated either suo motu or on a complaint received in Form-XIII. Sub-rule (3) further provides that the particulars to be mentioned in the complaint and unless the complaint is made in a proper Form containing all the particulars, the same is to be returned to the complainant for the removal of the objection within the time specified by the appropriate Government. Since in the present case, the complaint was not made in the prescribed Form-XIII and did not contain particulars required to be mentioned, as such the entire proceedings are vitiated and the order of removal is rendered illegal. It has further been pointed out that if the appropriate Government finds that there is a prima facie case against the Notary, it shall order an enquiry to be made in the matter by the appropriate authority and in the present case, the enquiry was made by the District Judge without there being any satisfaction and direction by the appropriate Government, i.e., the State Government.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that Form-XIII provides that the complainant is required to give his address, address of the Notary, respondent’s address, particulars of complaint in paragraphs consecutively numbered and particulars of evidence oral and documentary, if any, to substantiate the complaint and the entire particulars required by Form XIII were mentioned in the complaint as such even if it was not in the prescribed Form XIII, the same will not vitiate the proceeding. It has further been contended that since in the enquiry conducted by the District Judge, the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to have been established, he has rightly been removed, hence the order does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

8. To appreciate the contention raised before us, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules including Form XIII.

9. Section 10 of the Act provides removal of names from Register maintained by it under Section 4. Section 10 of the Act reads as under :

“Removal of names from Registe