SHAYNA v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative

: Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/05/2026

By way of instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking following reliefs : 2 “10.1. That, the records pertaining to thecase of the petitioner may be called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 That, the impugnedOrder dated

22.08.2022 (ANNEXURE P/01) may kindly be set aside and respondents may be directed to renew the Notary Certificate of the petitioner and he may be allowed to profess as Notary / Advocate.

10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated

22.08.2022 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his Notary Certificate has been rejected. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and was appointed as a Notary by the State Government for Tehsil Rajnandgaon in the year 2009 in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956. Pursuant thereto, a Notary Certificate dated

03.01.2009 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously discharged his duties as a Notary and Advocate without any complaint or allegation of misconduct. It is the case of the petitioner that the certificate issued in his favour 3 was duly renewed on 13.02.2014 for a further period of five years. Before expiry of the renewed term, the petitioner again submitted an application dated 21.08.2018 seeking renewal of his Notary Certificate before the competent authority in accordance with law. During consideration of the said application, the respondent authorities issued communications dated 23.08.2019 and

29.08.2019 directing the petitioner to produce the Notary Register, receipt books and other relevant documents for scrutiny. In compliance thereof, the petitioner immediately submitted all the requisite records and documents before the concerned authority. It has further been pleaded that certain defects were pointed out by the respondent authorities in relation to maintenance of entries in the Notary Register and memorandums were issued seeking explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that in certain entries signatures of executants were inadvertently not obtained due to bona fide human error and assured the authorities that such discrepancies would not recur in future. According to the petitioner, no complaint whatsoever regarding professional misconduct or any other objection had ever been received against him during his long tenure as a Notary. It is further contended that no regular inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 was ever conducted against him. The petitioner has further averred that the impugned action appears to have been taken on the basis of a communication dated 28.06.2022 issued by the District & 4 Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon; however, no copy of any adverse report was ever supplied to the petitioner nor was he afforded any effective opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 rejecting renewal of his Notary Certificate. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly appointed as a Notary by the State Government in the year 2009 in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956, and since then he has been continuously discharging his duties as a Notary and Advocate without any complaint or allegation of misconduct whatsoever. It is submitted that the petitioner’s Notary Certificate was duly renewed in the year 2014 and, prior to expiry of the renewed term, the petitioner again submitted an application dated

21.08.2018 seeking renewal of the certificate within the prescribed period and in accordance with the statutory procedure. Learned counsel submits that despite submission of the application within time along with all requisite documents, the same remained pending before the authorities for a considerable period without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel further submits that during scrutiny of the petitioner’s application, certain documents including the Notary Register and receipt books were sought by 5 the respondent authorities and the petitioner promptly produced all such records before the competent authority. Thereafter, certain defects relating to maintenance of entries in the Notary Register were pointed out by the authorities and memorandums were issued seeking clarification from the petitioner. It is contended that the alleged defects were purely clerical and procedural in nature, arising out of bona fide human error, inasmuch as signatures of executants in some entries could not be obtained inadvertently.

Learned counsel submits that immediately upon being informed of such discrepancies, the petitioner furnished his detailed explanation and assured the authorities that greater care would be taken in future and such omissions would not recur. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the alleged procedural irregularities do not amount to “professional misconduct” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952. It is submitted that no complaint from any litigant, advocate, public authority or member of the public has ever been received against the petitioner in relation to discharge of his professional duties as a Notary. It is further submitted that Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 specifically enumerates the circumstances under which the name of a Notary can be removed from the register or renewal can be denied. According to learned counsel, none of the statutory conditions contemplated under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 10 are attracted in the present case.

Learned counsel submits that the 6 petitioner has neither failed to pay the prescribed fees nor has he been declared insolvent, nor has he ever been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude. It is further contended that no inquiry, as contemplated under Section 10(d) of the Act, was ever conducted against the petitioner for establishing any professional or other misconduct. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned action appears to have been taken merely on the basis of a communication issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon; however, no adverse report was ever supplied to the petitioner and no effective opportunity of hearing was granted before passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2022. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the impugned order is cryptic, non-speaking and devoid of any reasons.

The order neither records any finding regarding misconduct nor specifies the statutory provision under which renewal of the petitioner’s certificate has been denied. Such an order, affecting the professional rights and livelihood of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been practicing as a Notary for more than a decade and denial of renewal of his certificate on account of minor procedural lapses would seriously prejudice his professional career and reputation. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to reconsider 7 and renew the petitioner’s Notary Certificate in accordance with law.

Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law after considering the material available on record. It is submitted that during scrutiny of the petitioner’s application for renewal, several irregularities and defects were noticed in the maintenance of the Notary Register and connected records maintained by the petitioner in discharge of his functions as a Notary. Learned State counsel further submits that upon examination of the records produced by the petitioner, it was found that mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under the Notaries Rules, 1956 had not been duly complied with by the petitioner while performing notarial acts. Certain entries in the register were incomplete and signatures of executants were not obtained in several cases, thereby reflecting negligence in discharge of statutory duties attached to the office of Notary. It is further submitted that the competent authority had sought explanation from the petitioner on more than one occasion and adequate opportunity was afforded to him to clarify the defects pointed out in the records. The petitioner himself admitted in his explanation that signatures in some entries had not been obtained due to mistake and human error. Learned State counsel contends that the office of a Notary carries statutory responsibilities and maintenance of proper records is an essential requirement under 8 the Act and Rules. Therefore, after considering the nature of discrepancies found in the records as well as the report received from the District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, the competent authority deemed it appropriate not to recommend renewal of the petitioner’s certificate. It is also submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with due consideration.

The undisputed facts of the present case reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Notary in the year 2009 and his certificate was thereafter renewed in the year 2014. The petitioner again applied for renewal on 21.08.2018 within the prescribed period. It is also not in dispute that during scrutiny of the petitioner’s records, certain defects and discrepancies were noticed by the respondent authorities in the maintenance of the Notary Register.

From the documents available on record, it appears that the defects pointed out against the petitioner primarily relate to non- obtaining of signatures of executants in certain entries maintained in the Notary Register. The petitioner, in response thereto, submitted his explanation stating that such omissions occurred 9 due to bona fide human error and assured the authorities that such defects would not be repeated in future.

At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which provides for removal of the name of a Notary from the register. The said provision contemplates removal only upon existence of specific contingencies enumerated under clauses (a) to (f), including professional misconduct established upon inquiry conducted in the prescribed manner. In the present case, the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 does not disclose that any inquiry, as contemplated under Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, was conducted against the petitioner. There is also no finding recorded by the competent authority holding the petitioner guilty of professional misconduct rendering him unfit to continue as a Notary.

The material available on record further demonstrates that no independent complaint alleging misconduct was ever received against the petitioner during his tenure extending over more than a decade. The discrepancies pointed out in the records appear to be procedural defects in maintenance of the register, for which explanation had already been furnished by the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned order does not assign any detailed reason as to how the alleged defects constitute misconduct within the meaning of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 so as to justify denial of renewal of the petitioner’s certificate. The order appears to have been passed merely on the basis of non- 10 recommendation by the competent authority without recording any substantive satisfaction regarding existence of statutory grounds contemplated under the Act. It is well settled that any administrative or quasi-judicial order affecting valuable rights of a person must disclose reasons and must satisfy the requirements of fairness and natural justice. A cryptic and non-speaking order affecting the professional rights of an Advocate functioning as a Notary cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated

22.08.2022 passed by the respondent authority is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 is hereby quashed.

The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his Notary Certificate afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge