Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.Nisha Banu, M.Jothiraman, JJ
V.K.Sakthi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.2065 of 2025 | Writ Petition No.16598 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Murali Kumaran Senior Counsel For Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Venkateswaran Spl. Govt. Pleader, Mr.A.K.Devendran Party-in-Person
The cancellation of a Notary's certificate must be supported by substantial evidence. Proportionality in administrative penalties is essential.
Headnote:(A) Notaries Act, 1952 - Notaries Rules, 1956 - Cancellation of Notary certificate based on allegations of professional misconduct - The appellant's debarment found disproportionate as he has maintained an unblemished record since 1997 and the complaints stem from the 2nd respondent’s financial defaults. No substantial evidence of misconduct was provided. (Paras 9, 11, 12)
(B) Proportionality in administrative penalties - The court emphasized that lesser penalties should be considered over debarment, affirming principles of natural justice and fairness in judicial review. (Paras 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Notary since 1997, was accused of misconduct involving unfilled bond papers for a housing loan, leading to a cancellation order due to a complaint by the 2nd respondent after defaulting on a loan.
Findings of Court:
The totality of circumstances shows that the penalties were inappropriate and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of not producing one register, leading to the conclusion that the order of cancellation was invalid.
Issues: The case examined the validity of the cancellation of the Notary's certificate due to failure to produce a register concerning the allegations raised against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposition of a perpetual penalty required substantial evidence of misconduct that was absent here; thus, cancellation of the Notary's certificate was not valid.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed, and the cancellation order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenged due to non-renewal of notary's certificate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the appellant's record and the nature of the complaint. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and the disproportionate nature of the penalty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles of proportionality and the validity of cancellation of notary's certificate. (Para 12) |
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.)
A challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order dated
26.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.16598 of 2023, by which, the Writ Petition challenging the non-renewal of the certificate of practice of the Writ Petitioner as Notary was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner, who is the appellant herein that he is a Practicing Advocate, enrolled in the Bar Council as early as in 1985 and he was also appointed as Notary Public in 1997 that was renewed periodically until it expired on 02.01.2023. While so, a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, alleging that the appellant had attested unfilled bond papers to facilitate a housing loan from L&T Housing Finance. After enquiry, the 1st respondent, vide order dated 14.03.2023 made in G.O.Ms.No.155, cancelled the certificate of practice and debarred the appellant permanently from acting as a Notary on the allegation of professional misconduct.
2.1. According to the appellant, the complaint was made against him primarily to cover up the default in repayment of loan. The 2nd respondent was in dare need of money, who had signed blank bond papers and affidavit for processing his loan application. It was the 2nd respondent, who had not verified the details found therein by blindly believing the financial institutions. It is argued by the appellant that there is no professional misconduct involved in exercising his duty as Notary. The impugned order of debarment was passed without recourse to the basic and rudimentary requisites before imposition of such debarment. The order was questioned before the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the failure of the appellant to produce the concerned Register to establish that he had not signed inchoate forms. Aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court, the appellant is before this Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record since 1997 and he cannot be held liable for missing of records, as it was lost during transit due to relocation of Courts. The non-production of the specific register was not intentional. According to him, the 2nd respondent, having signed all blank documents furnished by the Banking Institutions, cannot accuse the appellant for his mistake. The imposition of penalty of perpetual debarment is shockingly disproportionate, as the failure to produce the register will not by any stretch of imagination constitute wilful misconduct or gross negligence. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the appellant had maintained regular records and produced all required annual returns except for the one missing due to circumstances beyond control. The quasi judicial authorities and the learned Single Judge were critiqued by ignoring the principles of proportionality or alternative penalties, specified in the relevant Rules. The complaint was raised by the 2nd respondent only after default in repayment of loan, questioning the conduct of a Notary and therefore, the findings of the Inquiry Authority were beyond the scope of the allegations in the absence of primary charge of non-production of register. Thus, it was vehemently argued that when there was no controversial act done by the appellant, while performing as Notary all the years ever since 1997, learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the order or considered imposition of lesser penalty.
4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the order dated 14.03.2023 came to be passed after affor
