Procedural requirements under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, regarding the form and content of complaints are mandatory; non-compliance vitiates the disciplinary proceedings and the resulting removal order.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been preferred under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5468 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant came to be dismissed. The appellant, who is a practicing Advocate and Notary, calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 05.09.2024 issued by the respondent–State Government removing her name from the Register of Notaries, purportedly in exercise of powers under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956. The principal grievance raised in the present appeal is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the mandatory requirements prescribed under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, particularly with regard to the form and contents of the complaint and the procedure to be followed by the appropriate Government, and thereby erred in upholding the action of the State Government.

2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the present appeal are that, the appellant is a duly appointed Notary, practicing as an Advocate and Notary at Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.). She has been discharging her professional duties in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956.

******* A written complaint dated 04.08.2022 was submitted by respondent No. 3 – Smt. Radha Shrivastava before the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, alleging that a consent letter purportedly executed in favour of respondent No. 4 – Smt. Rukhmani Shrivastava was fraudulently notarized by the appellant. The said complaint is annexed as Annexure P/6 in the writ petition.

******* Pursuant to the said complaint, the State Government issued Memo dated 25.08.2022 directing the District & Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar Kanker (respondent No. 2) to obtain a reply from the appellant and to conduct necessary inquiry. In compliance thereof, respondent No. 2 issued Memo dated 14.10.2022 calling upon the appellant to submit her reply. The appellant submitted her detailed reply dated 21.10.2022 denying all allegations and asserting that the consent letter was duly executed in her presence after proper identification of the executants. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted an inquiry into the allegations. During the inquiry, statements of the complainant Smt. Radha Shrivastava and her sister Smt. Rukhmani Shrivastava were recorded. The Inquiry Officer prepared an inquiry report dated 17.03.2023 primarily on the basis of the statements of the complainant and her sister, as well as the written reply submitted by the appellant.

******* The Inquiry Officer, vide opinion dated 03.06.2023, opined that the appellant had not performed her duties carefully and impartially while notarizing the consent letter in question. The opinion was forwarded to respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 vide Memo dated 12.06.2023. It is the specific case of the appellant that the consent letter in question was executed on 07.02.2022 in her presence. The complainant Smt. Radha Shrivastava and Smt. Rukhmani Shrivastava signed the document in her presence, and the same was entered at Serial No. 161 in the Notary Register maintained by the appellant. The relevant page of the Notary Register has been brought on rec