The removal of a notary's name from the register is not automatic and requires an order passed by the Government after considering the relevant facts. The notary must be given an opportunity to explain his position before the order of removal is passed. The order of removal must be a speaking order and must elaborate on the misconduct attributed to the notary.

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The petitioner, a practising advocate, aggrieved by the action of the State of Madhya Pradesh in ordering the removal of his name from the register of Notary (Public). The copy of this order is Annexure A-5.

2. The brief facts out of which this petition arises be noticed. The petitioner is duly enrolled as an advocate. He was so enrolled on 30th of October, 1972. He was appointed as a Notary on 28th of September, 1983. This appointment was for a period of three years. Copy of appointment order has been placed on record as Annexure A-2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was duly appointed as Notary after an inquiry as contemplated by Rule 6 of the Notary Rules, 1956 framed under Notaries Act, 1952 was held. The name of the petitioner was duly notified in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Rules in the Official Gazette. Objections were invited. No objection was received within the period of 14 days. The District Judge, Morena made his recommendations and the petitioner's name was included in the register of Notaries under Rule 8 of the Rules, referred to above.

3. The further fact is that a notice dated 21st May, 1984 was sent to the petitioner on 14th June, 1984. It was stated therein that the petitioner had wrongly claimed the office of Notary and that his name was liable to be removed as he had not completed 10 years of practice. This information is purported to be based on some communication addressed by one Shri B. G. Darpe. An inquiry was initiated. The further fact is that a charge sheet, copy whereof is Annexure A-3, was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply. The petitioner did submit his reply. The plea taken by him was that his appointment as Notary was made according to law. He also stated that such an inquiry was not within the four corners of Section 10 of the Act or Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules. The plea being that only that misconduct which has been committed by a Notary after he has assumed the duties of Notary can be looked into. It was further pleaded that the Government acted on some reports submitted by the District Judge, Morena and that the report was not made available to the petitioner.

4. This writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2nd May, 1985. On that date the Division Bench stayed the operation of the order Annexure A-5. Even though this petition remained pending in this Court for over eleven years no reply has been filed.

5. At the outset a few provisions of the Act deserve to be noticed. Sections 5 and 10 of the Act are relevant and be noticed. These read as under:-

"5. Entry of names in the Register and issue or renewal of certificates of practice. - (1) Every notary who intends to practice as such shall, on payment to the Government appointing him of prescribed fee, if any, be entitled :-

(a) to have his name entered in the Register maintained by that Government under Section 4, and

(b) to a certificate authorising him to practise for a period of three years from the date on which the certificate is issued to him.

(2) Every such notary who wishes to continue to practise after the expiry of the period for which his certificate of practise has been issued under this section shall, on application made to the Government appointing him and payment of the prescribed fee, if any, be entitled to have his certificate of practise renewed for three years at a time."

"10. Removal of names from Register. - The Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it under Section 4 the name of the notary if he -

(a) makes a request to that effect; or

(b) has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or

(c) is an undischarged insolvent; or

(d) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practise as a notary."

6. The question arises as to whether the petitioner's removal is in accorda