IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 15.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.No.18419 of 2018

and W.M.P.Nos.21744 & 31572 of 2018

M.Ilancheran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Secretary

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Law Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for

the records relating to the order passed by the second

respondent in G.O.Ms.No.450 Law Administration Department dated

26.08.2013, to quash the same and consequently to direct the

second respondent to renew the Notary Certificate of practice of

the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan

For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjahan

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the

order passed by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.450 Law

Administration Department dated 26.08.2013, quash the same and

consequently to direct the second respondent to renew the Notary

Certificate of practice of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a

Notary through Dharmapuri District, Pappireddipatty Taluk, for a

period of 5 years and it expires on 07.03.2012. Thereafter, he

made an application for the purpose of renewal of the Notary

Public vide application dated 10.04.2013 along with prayer to

condone the delay, by enclosing medical certificates. While

so, the 2^nd respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.450, dated 26.08.2013,

wherein, the petitioner’s name was removed from the Register of

Notaries maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits by

referring the said impugned order, the respondent stated that

there was a delay of 492 days on the part of the petitioner in

making the application renewal. In this regard, the petitioner

sent a representation dated 7.9.2013, along with medical

certificate, assigning the reason for the delay. However, the

petitioner received a letter dated 25.10.2013 from the 2^nd

respondent, stating that there is no provision for review, once

the order of removal was issued. Aggrieved over the same, with

no other option, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr.Shahjahan, learned Special Government Pleader,

appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner

has not made the application in time, but later requested to

review the impugned order. He pointed out that as per the

Notaries Rules, 1956, the petitioner has to apply for renewal of

his Certificate of practice to the Government, six months prior

to the expiry of the Notary License and in the present case, the

petitioner has not made any such application six months prior to

the expiry of his Certificate. The 2^nd respondent received the

application after a period of 492 days and no explanation was

given by the petitioner for the said delay. He also pointed out

that even before passing the impugned order, the respondent

issued a communication to the petitioner to furnish the reason

for the delay in filing the application for renewal and since no

reply was received, the respondent passed the impugned order

removing the name of the petitioner from the Register of

Notaries.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that though in the impugned order, the respondent

referred that they have sent the communication to the

petitioner, seeking explanation for the delay from the

petitoner, but in fact, the petitoiner has not recieved any such

communication from the respondents and because of this, the

petitioner could not submit the reasons for the d