IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
F.C. Jain
Vs.
Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
Decided On: 21.07.2009
Notaries Act, 1952 - Removal of Notary - Section 10(d)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Notary, was removed from the Notary Register under Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 due to misconduct and irregularities in notary work.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved, and the petitioner admitted to the same. The court applied the principle of natural justice and concluded that as the petitioner admitted his fault, the relief sought could not be granted.
Issues: The issues involved the removal of the petitioner from the Notary Register under Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952, and the petitioner's claim of illegal, arbitrary, and malafide intention in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of natural justice and estoppel, considering the admission of fault by the petitioner, and concluded that the relief sought could not be granted.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner Shri Fattuchand Jain was removed from the Notary Register under provisions of Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act, 1952').
2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Notary by order dated 8th January, 2003 (Annexure P-l) for a period of five years. The petitioner applied for renewal of certificate of Notary on 15th October, 2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner received the impugned order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner was removed from the Notary Register under the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Act, 1952, on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not fit to perform the work of Notary.
3. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) is illegal, arbitrary and with malafide intention. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. Further, the impugned order was not passed before 7th January, 2008, but thereafter when the petitioner's application for renewal of the certificate was pending consideration. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed.
4. Per contra, Shri Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that a complaint was made by Balod Tehsil Adhivakta Sangh on 11th October, 2006 (Annexure R-1) that the petitioner was not a member of the Bar Association of Balod and he had concealed this fact that the time of his appointment. An enquiry was conducted by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg. In his report dated 11th May, 2007 (Annexure R-2), it was found that the complaint made against the petitioner were true and correct on certain issues. The State Government, by letter dated 19th June, 2007, requested the District & Sessions Judge, to submit a report after examining all the issues as the enquiry report dated 11th May, 2007 did not digcuss all the points. Second report dated 18th February, 2008 (Annexure R-4) was submitted. On the basis of the report dated 18th February, a show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2008 (Annexure R-5) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response to the show-cause notice on 5th April, 2008 (Annexure R-6) admitting his misconduct. After having considered the report submitted by the Additional District Judge and the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The order is legal, just and proper and has been passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
6. On perusal of the report dated 11th May, 2007 and 18th February, 2008, it appears that the Notary Certificate was issued in the name of Fattuchand Jain. The petitioner has used Notary seal in the name of Fattechand Jain. The petitioner used to charge Rs. 15/- to Rs. 150/- for notary work. In most of the cases, the petitioner used to charge Rs. 150/-. The petitioner has further not used a proper notary seal in the name of Fattuchand Jain. It was found proved that the petitioner was not using notary seal in proper name, i.e., in the name of Fattuchand Jain but in the name "Fattechand Jain". He has charged excessively from the consumers when the notary fee as notified, was Rs. 10/- for ordinary documents. The petitioner, in his reply dated 5th April, 2008 has admitted his misconduct and irregularities committed by him as under:
;g fd] vukosnd dk uke vadlwfp;ks esa QRrwpan tSu fy[kk gqvk gS rFkk O;kolkf;d ifjlj esa lHkh Qrsgpan tSu ds uke ls tkurs gS bl dkj.k vkosnd }kjk Qrsgpan tSu ds uke dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS A Qrsgpan ,oa QRrwpan tSu ,d gh O;fDr gS A esjs }kjk lHkh izLrqr vkosnuks esa lhy Qrsgpan tSu dk yxk;k x;k gSA d
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.