ORDER :- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was enrolled as a Notary Public for the first time in 1959 to practise as such at Lucknow. His certificate was renewed for a period of three years with effect from 20th August, 1962. It was during this period of renewal that a complaint was made against him by another Advocate, Sri Krishan Chandra on 2nd May, 1963 to the State Government in Form 13 as required by the Notaries Rules, 1956. This complaint was referred for enquiry to the Competent Authority, namely, the District Judge, Lucknow. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint the Competent Authority framed the following three charges :

1. That he (the petitioner) made no entry in his register regarding the three affidavits dated 25-7-1961, 24-8-1961 and 24-8-1961 of Sarju Prasad, Inder Prakash and Chandra Mohan and thus contravened Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules.

2. That none of these four affidavits were stamped with notarial stamp as required under Article 42 of the Stamp Act.

3. That none of these four affidavits was stamped with adhesive stamps in accordance with Sections 10 and 11 or the Stamp Act, though it was the duty of the Notary to see that the affidavits were duly stamped before he administered oath to the deponents, and got them verified.

The petitioner was called upon to file a written statement which he did. A true copy of the written statement is Annexure 4 to the petition. After holding an enquiry on the basis of the above mentioned charges the Competent Authority submitted his report on 18th February, 1964 to the State Government saying that the charges levelled against the respondent (the petitioner) have been brought home to him. After receipt of the said report of the Competent Authority the State Government on 11th March 1964 issued a notification purporting to be under Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 read with clause (b) of sub-rule (12) of Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 cancelling with effect from the date of the notification the certificate of practice granted to the petitioner and perpetually debarring him from practising as such. Aggrieved by this notification the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which came to be registered as Writ Petition No. 380 of 1964 (All). It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 7th May, 1965.

Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a special appeal which came to be decided in his favour on 6th September, 1966. The decision of that special appeal is reported in AIR 1967 All 173, Kashi Prasad Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. As a result of the decision in the special appeal the State Government issued notification dated 28th February 1967, a copy of which is Annexure 6 to the petition, cancelling the earlier notification by which the petitioner's certificate to practise as a Notary was cancelled. Soon thereafter the certificate authorising the petitioner to practise as a Notary for a period of three years with effect from 20th August, 1965 was issued and as alleged by the petitioner he actually received it on 10th March 1967. A copy of the certificate thus issued is filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. It purports to have been signed on 29th September, 1967 but the petitioner showed me the original in the course of the arguments and it appears therefrom that it was signed on 25th September, 1967. Obviously, the year 1967 as mentioned therein is a mistake for the year 1966. It is also the allegation in paragraph 17 of the petition though no doubt there also the mistake is committed in so far as it purports to say that it was signed on 25th June, 1966 whereas the fact appears to be that it was actually signed on 25th September, 1966.

Another communication dated 3rd March 1967, a copy of which is Annexure 7 to the petition, was issued to the petitioner along with which a copy of the report of the Competent Authority dated 18th Februa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document