Procedural requirements under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, including the use of the prescribed Form XIII for complaints and the right to cross-examine witnesses, are mandatory; failure to adhere to these renders the removal of a notary's name from the register illegal.

CAV ORDER

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/06/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Secretary/Additional Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur, whereby, his name has been removed from the Notary Register in exercise of the powers provided under Section 10(d) of The Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1952”).

2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner’s name, who was performing his duty as a “Notary” in District- Kanker, has been removed from the Register of Notary maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952, based upon the enquiry held on the basis of the complaint made on 19/06/2020 by the respondent No.4- Ashok Chaurasiya. According to the complaint made by him before the In-charge, Police Station- Kanker, District- Kanker, it appears that, a house-in-question bearing No.63 situated at village- Thelkabod, Kanker was booked in the name of his brother, in Chhattisgarh Housing Board and was fallen in his share subsequently and was registered accordingly, in his name. It is alleged by him that, the key of the house-in-question was given to one Najeeb Qureshi for its care, who was a close friend, like a brother, of his wife, who had later on, shown a deed known as “Ikrarnama” for the alienation of his alleged house to one Smt. Seema Bano wife of Haneef Khan, though, no document as such was, however, executed by him. Further of his allegation was that, a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- was purchased from the stamp vendor, namely, Smt. Uma Sahu, in the name of said Seema bano, while putting a false signature of her and without intimating to him, said Najeeb Qureshi, has got his signature on plain paper and that by attaching the same to the alleged stamp paper, got it notarized with the notary- Rajhans Matiyara, the petitioner herein, on 08/01/2016, though, he was not there on the said day at District- Kanker and, based upon his alleged allegation, it was prayed for initiation of the offence of criminal breach of trust against said Najeeb Qureshi, while forwarding a copy of it to the Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur for taking an appropriate action against the petitioner as well.

3. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry was initiated, while supplying a copy of it to the petitioner on 18/08/2020, who in turn, has submitted his reply (Annexure R/2) admitting the fact that the alleged agreement was got notarized by him on 08/01/2016, but due to hurriedness, it was escaped over to get it entered in the Register and, during the course of enquiry, the statements of the attesting witnesses of the alleged agreement, alongwith the complainant and the petitioner were recorded, where the alleged allegation was found to be proved as evidenced by the enquiry report, dated 23/03/2021, as the petitioner has admitted that, after the notarization of the alleged document on 08/01/2016, he failed to get it entered in his Register, as a result of which, he was held guilty for the violation of Rule 11(9) of The Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1956”) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers provided under Section 15 of the Act, 1952 and, in consequence, the respondent No.2, vide its order impugned has directed for the removal of his name from the Notary Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952 and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Raza Ali,