THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.25708 OF 2023

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in passing the order under Notification through G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 01.07.2023, Revenue (Registration-II) Department, by the respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Notary Act and Rules sought to set aside the said G.O and consequently direct the respondents to renew the petitioner’s certificate of Practice of Notary.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the Courts at Siricilla and other Courts in Telangana State, vide Enrolment No.242/1990 dated 08.03.1990. The petitioner was also appointed as “Notary” vide G.O.Ms.No.1222/2011 (Rev. Reg.II Department) dated 14.07.2011 and he was also issued with Certificate of Practice as Notary from 14.07.2011 at Siricilla Town and Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District and he also got renewed the Notary Certificate file No.NR/525/2016 dated

13.07.2017 w.e.f. from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2021.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner applied for renewal of Notary Certificate on 06.07.2021, before expiry of earlier certificate, by paying necessary fee to the respondent No.3 and also by enclosing relevant documents. Pursuant to the renewal application filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issued a letter No.G/NR/2742/2021 dated 21.11.2021 and asked the reasons for non-attesting any documents during the period from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2021. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that due to health grounds and due to COVID not practiced and not attested any document. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued impugned Notification through G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (Registration. II) Department, dated 01.07.2023, stating that the petitioner has not attested a single document during the period of second renewal and not taken any permission from the Notarial Functions from the concerned District Registrar and thereby there is a professional lapse of five years in discharging the duties and treated the same as professional misconduct as per Notary Act, 1952.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted his explanation along with the `relevant medical record, however, without considering the same and without conducting any enquiry, issued the impugned G.O. The respondent authorities have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule-13 of the Notary Rules, 1956.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, merely non-practicing as Notary during the period from 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2021 does not comes under the professional Misconduct. The professional misconduct suggest dishonesty or some conduct involving moral turpitude, but non-practicing for some period does not come under the Act of moral turpitude.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no discretion is vested in the State Government at the time of renewal of an application filed by a Notary. A Notary once registered as such, is entitled to renewal as a matter of course, merely on payment of requisite fee as prescribed in the Rules and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned G.O., 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following Judgment:

1. State of Kerala Vs. Narayana Poduvarl etc,

1 AIR 1992 KERALA 152

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter filed the respondents would submit that the respondent No.3 forwarded the renewal application of the petitioner to the Respondent No.2, who in turn asked the petitioner through the