Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BABY JACOB – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims to be an advocate as well as a notary. (Para 1) |
| 2. the application delay and complaints against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court directs timely action on the renewal application. (Para 4) |
| 4. outcome of the judgment to dispose the writ petition. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be an Advocate with Roll No.K/1953/99. He was also appointed as a Notary by the State Government. Since his registration as a Notary was about to expire, he applied for its renewal, and its acknowledgment is evident from Ext.P3. The renewal fee has also been paid as is evident from Ext.P4. Despite the above, the petitioner’s application has neither been disposed of nor renewed.
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the application for renewal has not been disposed of since the petitioner had not responded to certain queries in connection with certain complaints received against the petitioner’s renewal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the complaints was at the behest of his former wife, with whom matrimonial disputes pending. It is also submitted that the petitioner would certainly respond if he is in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
