SRI v. vs RAMANA RAO

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to renew petitioners Certificate of Practice of Notary to practice as Notary, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.257O8 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 O1.07.2023, Revenue (Registration-Il) Department, by the respondent No.1, AS illegal, arbitrar5r, against the principles of natura,l 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. .) .) 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.O3.1990. The petil-ioner wds a,lso appointed AS "Notar5/" vide I 2 sK,.,r G.O.Ms.No.1222/2011 (Rev. Reg.II Department) dated 14.O7.2O1t and he was also issued with Certificate of Practice as Notary from I4.OZ.2OIl at Siricilla Tora,n and Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District and he also got renewed the Notary Certificate file No.NR/525/2016 dated 13.O7 .2O17 rv.e.l. from 14.O7.2Ot6 to 13.O7.2021.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner applied for renewal of Notary Certificate on 06.O7 .2021, before expiry of earlier certificate, by paying necessary fee to the respondent No.3 and also by cnclosing relevant documents. pursuant to the renewal application filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 issuccl a letrer No.G/NR/2 742 /2021 dated 21.11.2021 and asked the reasons for non_attesting any documents during the period from 14.OT.2016 to 13.O7.2021. 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 3 SK,J 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 profcssional lapse of five years in discharging the duties and treated the same as professional misconduct as per Notary Act, L952. 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 \ 't ;1, 4 SK,J during the period frorn 14.O7.2016 to 13.O7.2021 does not comes under the professional Misconduct. The professional misconduct suggest disironesty 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 vestecl in the state Government at the time of renewal of an application fiied by a Notary. A Notary once registered as such, is entitled to renewa_l as a matter of course, .merely on payrnent of requisite fee as prescribed in the Rules and requested to allow the writ petitiot-r by setting aside the impugned G.O., 8 The learr-red Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his conte ntion, placed reliance on the following Judgment:

7. State of Rerala Vs. Naragana pod.uuarl etc,l \ tAIR 1992 KERALA 1s2 lt: 5 SK,J 9 The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter {iled 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 respondent No.3, to submit his explalation for non-attesting single document from 15.O7.2OL6 to 13.07.2O2I vide letter dated 30.08.2021- In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.O9.2021 . After examination of the contents, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (Registration..ll) Department, dated O1.O7.2023 by removing name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries.

10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, after the amendment introduced by the Act, 36 of 7999, w.e.f. 17.12.1999, discretion is vested with the State Government to grant the renewal or refuse it' The grant of renewal of the license for authorization is a t i., 6 SK,J rule and the rejection is an exception. As per the records, the respondents came to a conclusion that the petitioner committed professionai misconduct ar-rd tl-rcreby removed the name lrom the Register of Notarics as contemplated under Rule-lo (d) of the Notaries Act, and tht:re are no merits and requested to dismiss the writ petition 1 1. After hearing both sides and perusing 1.1-re material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and he was appointed as Notary in G.O.Ms.No. 1222,(Revenue (Reg.II) Department, dated 14.07.201 1 initially for a period of Fivc years and the same was renewed by the competent atltirorities in letter No.NR/525/2016, datecl 13.07.2017 ftom 14 07 2OL6 to

13.O7.202L. Subsequently, before expiry of eariier Notary Certihcate, the petitioner applied for renerval of notaly by paying necessary fee. In response to the said application, the respondent No.2 issued Memo No NR/4765 l2O2l dated 18.08.202 1 instructing the respondent No'3 to call for the explanation from the petitioner as he has not \ 7 SK,J attested a single document for the period frorrr 14.07.2016 to 13.07.2021 and for not practicing AS Notary. In response to the sarne, the petitioner submitted his explanation on O4.O9.2O21 mentioning the reasons that due to ill-health of a close relative of the petitioner and also due to ill-health of petitioner during the COVID period, he was unable to attest any document for the said period. Thereafter, without initiating any proceedings, again the respondent No.2 askecl the petitioner in letter No.29.lO.2O2l to submit his explanation along with the documents. In response theretq the petitioner submitted his explanation along with medical certihcates. Thereafter, without considering the explanation submitted by petitioner AS contemplated under Notary Rules, 1956 issued impugned G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (Registration. II) Department, dated O1.O7.2O23 and remoVed the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries as per Clause (d) of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, I

12. Clause (d) of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, reads as foliows: SKJ Removal of names from the Register Government appointing any notary, rnay, remove from the Register maintained bv Section 4, the name of the notary, if he - : Thc by order, it under (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) rccr (d) has been found, upon inquirv in the prt:scribed manner, to be guilty of such prolessional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of thc Government, renders him unfit to practicl as a Notary. i3. Clause (d) of Section 1O of Nolarir:s Ac1 , l9S2 clearly shows that upon enquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional or other misr;onduct renders him unfit to practice as notary. But, in the instant case, the respondent authorities, without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under contemplated under \rRule i3 of the Notary Rules, 1956, issued impugned G.O., .4.: 9 SK,J The Rute-73 of Notary Rules, 1956, reads as follouts:

13. Inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a notary. ( 1) An inquiry into the misconduct o[ a notary may be initiated eithe r suo motu by the appropriate Government or on a complaint received in Form Xlll.] . (2) Every such complaint shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (a) the acts and omissions rvhich, if provcd, would render the person complained against unfit to be a notary; (b) the oral or documentary cvidence rclied upon in support of the allegations made in the complaint. (3) The appropriate Government shall return a complaint which is not in the proper' Form or which does not contain the aforesaid, particulars to the complainant for representation af[er compliance with such objections and within such times as the appropriate Government may specify: Providcd that il the subject-matter in a complaint is, in the opinion of the said Govcrnment substantially. the same as or covcred by, any previous complaint and if there is no additional ground, the said Government shall file the said complaint without any further action and inform the complainant accordingly. I \ 10 SK,J (4) Within sixty days ordinarily of the ret;c_-ipt of complaint, the appropriate Government shall sencl a copy ther.eof to the notary at his address as entered in the Rcgistcr of Notaries. (4A) Where an ir-rquiry is initiated, slro ntotLl lty the appropriate GovernmcnL, the appropriate Government shall send to the notary. a statement specifyirrg ttrc Chargc or charses against him, together with particulars of the oral or documentary evidence relied upon it-r strpport of such charge or charges_ (5) A notary against whom an inquiry h;rs bcen irtrtiatcd may, u,ithin lourteen days of the servicc on him of a copv of the complaint under sub rule (4) or r:[ thc statcmeltt o[ thc chargcs under sub-rule (4A) as the case may be,l or u,ithin such time as may be e xtended by the appropriate Govenrment, forward to thdt Govcrnmcnt a wrltten statement in his delence verified in the s:rme rnan nor as a pleacling ,in a civil court.

6. If on a persual of 2[the writtcn statcrncnr,l il zrny, of tlie notarv concerned and other rclcvant cktcurncr-rts and papers, the appropriate Government consiclcr-tl.rat thcrc is a primzr facie case against such notary, the apllrcrpriatc Government shzrll cause an inquiry to be made in the mattcr by thc competent authority. If tlre apJrropriaLe Government is of the opinion that therc is no prirnzr facie case against the notary concerned, [thc complarnt or charge shall be filed] and the complainanL :rnd the r.rotary conccrned shall be informed accordingly. 11 SK,J

7. Dvery notice issued to a notary under this rule sha1l be sent to him by registered post. If any such notice is returned unserved, with an endorsement indicating that the addressee has refused to. accept the notice Or the notice is not returned unserved within a period of thirty days from the date of its despatch, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the notary. 8lt shall be the duty of the appropriate Government to place before the competenl authority all facts brought to its knowledge which are relevant for the purpose of an inquiry by the competent authority. 9 A notary u,ho is proceeded against shail have, right to defend himself before the competent Authorily cither in person or through a legal praclitioner or any other notary.

10. Except as otherwise' provided in these ru1es, the competent authority shall have the power to regulate his procedure relating to the inquiry in such manner as he considers 'necessary and during the course of inquiry, may examine witnesses and receive, any other oral or documentary evidence. I 1. The competent authority sha11 submit his report to the Government. entrusting him with the inquiry.

12. (a) The appropriate Government shall consider the report of the compe[ent authority, and if in its opinion a further inquiry is necessary, may cause such further I I h t I I $ I l I I' ,,.. 12 SK,J inquiry to be made and a furthcr report submittcd by the .'competent authority. (b) If alter considering the report of the competcn t authority, the appropriate Government is of Lhe opinion that action should be Laken against the not appropriatc Government may make an order- (i) cancelling the certificate of practice and perpctually debarring: the notary from practice; or (ii) suspending him from practice for a specified period,

13. NotificaLion of removal-The removal of the namc of any notary from thc Register of Notaries from practice, as the case may be, shall be notihed in Official Gazefte and shall also be communicated 'in writing to the notary concerned". In the instant case, the Respondent-ar-rthorities have not followed the procedure as contemplated in the above said rules.

14. This Court in M.Malla Reddg and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshr 2 considered the removal of narne s of petitioners therein from the Register of Notaries , zou (2) ALT 478 (sB) \ ".*tr 13 SK,J and set aside the impugned Memo rejecting the request of the petitioners therein for renewal of their certificates of practice. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: "21. A conjoint readingof Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule g-B of the Rules would clearly show that with the introduction of word "may" an element of discretion is given tct the authorities to reject the application Jbr renewal even if'the same is mctcle within the prescribed time along with requisite./ees. AJier the omenclment, a discretion is vestcd will.t the State Governntent to grant renewal or refuse it, but the said discretion, which has been given to the State Government to reject the request of renewal, should be within the .fbur corners of the Act and it has to be exercisecl juclicially. Once an application /br renewal was made within the period prescribed along with the requisite fee and i/'the case o/ the applicant does ncttfall within any one of the categoties enunteratecl in Section l0 rlf the Act, the authorities have no option except lo renew the request. As referred to earlier, Section l0 of the Act gives pou)er to the Government to remove a person a.s notary fronl the register maintained by it under Section 4 of the Act, if his case falls under any of the six grounds referred to in Section l0 of the Act,' (Emphasis added) I \ 14 SK,J i

15. In the instant case also, the respondent-authorities without conducting any enquiry as per Notaries Act, 7952 and Notary Ilules, 1956, issued impugned G.O., stating that there is a professional lapse for fivc yoars in discharging his duties and treated the same as professional misconduct as per the Notaries Act, 1952 and removed the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries. There is a procedure prescribed under the Notaries Act, 1952 for removal of the Notaries. In the instar-rt case. the respondent-ar-r thorities have not lollowed any proccdurc as contemplated in the Notaries Act,' 1952 and rules made thereunder belore issuing the impugned G.O

16. In vir:w of the above hnding, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (Registration-tl) Department, dated Ol.O7 .2023 issued by the respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside and thc respondent authorities have to renew the certificate of practice of Notary of the petitioner. \ \{ a l 15 SK,J

77. Accordingly, this Writ petition is a,llowed and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue (Registration_II) Department, dated OI.OZ.2023 issued by the respondent No.l is hereby set aside by directing the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for renewal of his Certilicate of practice of Notary as per the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notary Rules, 1956. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in . this Writ petition, sha_ll stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness Witness THE HON'BLE ACTING CHTEF JUSTTCE SUJOY pAUL, Friday, The Twenty Seventh Day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Four '' --- I I //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGI-STRAR ,./ IL' SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Principal secretary, Revenue (Registration- lr) Department, secretariat 2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Buildings, The State of Teiangana, Hyderabad. Telangana State, Hyderabad. District, T. S.

3. The District Registrar, office of District Registrar of Assurances, Karimnagar 4. One CC to Sri V. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to GP for Stamps And Registration, High Court for the State of 6. Two CD Copies Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] TJ TKS a HIGH COURT I DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.25708 o12023 ..: of\ t SIi16 o t * 17 JUr zffi }=z * PA ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lil{'6$