$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3541/2026 Date of decision: 19.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

SHRI JOHN DAVID KUSMODE .....Petitioner (Through: Mr. Robin Ratnakar David and Ms.Neiting Khongsai, Advocates.)

versus UNION OF INDIA, UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, NOTARY CELL & ORS. .....Respondents (Through: Mr Jagdish Chandra (CGSC), Ms Aishwarya Sinha (GP), Ms Maanya Saxena, Advocates.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside the Inquiry Report dated 11.06.2025 and Order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Respondents cancelling the Petitioner’s Certificate of Practice as Notary Public and directing removal of his name from the Register of Notaries;

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents:

i. to forthwith restore the name of the Petitioner in the Register of Notaries maintained under the Notaries Act, 1952; and ii. to reinstate and revalidate the Petitioner’s Certificate of Practice as Notary Public (Regn. No. 4501) and permit the Petitioner to continue to practise as Notary Public;

c) Pass such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the Petitioner is a 72-year- old advocate and Notary Public who has been practicing at the District Court, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra since 1979.

3. The present matter arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging improper notarisation of documents pertaining to Rays Foundation Trust. It is stated that in February 2022, the Petitioner had certified photocopies of Trust records as “True Copy” after purportedly comparing it with the originals produced before him.

4. Subsequently, an FIR dated 02.05.2024 came to be registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, against certain trustees for alleged forgery and misappropriation in respect of certain transactions stated to have occurred in February 2023, wherein the Petitioner was neither named nor implicated. Thereafter, on 15.04.2024, a complaint was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, wherein, allegations were also levelled against the Petitioner. However, upon inquiry, no alleged involvement of the Petitioner is stated to have been found and the inquiry against him was closed.

5. Further, a complaint was filed before the Notary Cell on 20.12.2024 alleging professional misconduct by the petitioner. After conducting an inquiry, the Competent Authority vide an inquiry report dated 11.06.2025 concluded that the notarisation was ante-dated and that non-production of the Notarial Register indicated improper notarisation. Accordingly, the charges were held to have been proved. Based on this report, the Central Government vide order dated 22.12.2025 cancelled the petitioner’s Certificate of Practice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein, this Court ruled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the doctrine of forum conveniens can be applied. Also, the Court observed that the situs of the authority passing the order impugned in a petition cannot be the sole determinative criteria requiring this Court to entertain a writ. Further, the Court laid down that the cause of action depends upon the factual matrix of each case and cannot be totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority while completely ignoring the concept of forum conveniens. In paragraph nos. 32 and 33 of the said decision, this Court held that: “32