Karnataka High Court
Sri. Puttaramiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14918 OF 2022(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.PUTTARAMIAH,
S/O SRI.CHICKATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.65/1, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, GANDHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.07.2022 IN
NO.LAW-LCL/148/2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO RENEW THE
CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE OF THE PETITIONER TO
CONTINUE HIS SERVICE AS NOTARY PUBLIC, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
Petitioner - Notary Public is grieving before the Writ Court against order dated 20.07.2022 whereby his request for renewal of Certificate of Practice by the respondent - State has rejected. The same reads as under:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ (1)gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21-01-2021gÀ £À«ÃPÀgÀt CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄlÖzÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃlj PÁAiÉÄÝ 1952 ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÆÃlj ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1956gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃlj ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀȦÛPÀgÀªÁV £ÀqɸÀzÀ PÁgÀt, £ÉÆÃlj ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1956gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 8(©) gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹, ¤ªÀÄä £ÉÆÃlj ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £À«ÃPÀgÀtzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ."
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after passing of order by a Co-ordinate Bench, a representation was made to the respondent on 21.03.2022 which resulted in the impugned order of rejection. He further argues that the impugned order is devoid of any reasons or statistical data and has been made absolutely without any basis.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent opposes the petition contending that this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P. No. 1909/2020 vide order dated 3 09.11.2021 had considered all issues and warned the Notaries Public against future lapses, however observing that the said warning shall not come in the way of renewal of license. Subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 11.03.2022 directed consideration of the request for renewal by the respondent authorities and the same accordingly considered was rejected. Added, ordinarily, whether renewal is to be granted or not is a matter left to the discretion of the deciding authority.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties an having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
(a) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No. 3767/2022 disposed off vide order dated 11.03.2022 had observed as under:
"In light of the above, the following order: The respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 12.11.2021 for renewal of Notary license of the petitioner in 4 light of the decision if any taken in that regard on 08.12.2021 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above the writ petitioner is disposed of."
Pursuant to the above order, petitioner had made the representation dated 21.03.2022 seeking renewal of license. The said representation has been rejected arbitrarily vide order dated 21.07.2022, the only unsustainable reason being the 'unsatisfactory performance' of the petitioner as a Notary Public. On what basis such an adverse opinion has been formed is not forthcoming not only in the impugned order but also in the Statement of Objections. The opinions of the kind which have stigmatic effect cannot be loosely formed. They should be data driven. Despite vociferous submissions, learned AGA is not in a position to sustain the reason on which the impugned order is founded.
(b) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner is more than justified in contending that such a reason can only stand with supportive reasons, data & 5 performance yardsticks. They cannot be supplemented from outside in the form of affidavit or objection statements now. The Apex Court in M.S. GILL vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, AIR 1978 SC 851 observed:
"...equally relevant is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise...." Any statistical data being conspicuously absent for the formation of opinion as to unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner as a Notary Public, the impugned order is unsustainable.
(c) It is pertinent to note that Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 provides for the issue or renewal of Certificate of Practice of a Notary Public. Sub section (2) thereof reads as under:
"...(2) The Government appointing the notary, may, on receipt of' an application and the prescribed fee, 'renew the certificate of practice of any notary for a period of five years at a time."6
Similarly, Rule 8(b) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 mandates consideration of request for renewal. Ordinarily, when a statute mandates consideration of representation made to it, the authorities are duty bound to record reasons for the decisions thereon. The said Rule reads as under:
"The certificate of practice issued under sub-rule (4) of rule 8 may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be submitted to the appropriate Government before three months from the date of expiry of its period of validity:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, after considering the reasons stated in the application, relax the condition of submission of application for renewal of certificate of practice before the above specified period."
Grant of license is one thing and renewal is another. In the former, ordinarily, discretion lies with the Statutory authority concerned, although such discretion needs to be excercised in accordance with rules of reason and justice. However, in the latter the quantum of discretion is comparatively diminished and the authority has to 7 make out a special case for denying renewal. No such case is made out to sustain the impugned order.
(d) This Court hastens to add that, ordinarily, after setting aside of the impugned order the matter would have been remanded to the authorities for consideration afresh. Added, petitioner is before this Court for the third time. However, this court is not inclined to go for remand and reasons are not far to seek: firstly, the only ground on which the impugned order is founded is unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, which is found to be unsustainable. Secondly, a perusal of copies of the government record shows that at all the stages of consideration, case of the petitioner was favorably recommended. In fact, the Minister concerned had directed issuance of renewal certificate. However, what hurricane came in the way is not explained. It baffles the court as to how abruptly, with no reason nor rhyme, a turn around could have been made. Had there been even a slightest reason for this volte - face, this Court would have remanded the matter. Had it been a case of grant 8 of certificate, perhaps the decision would have been otherwise. Ordinarily, right to renewal stands on a higher footing compared to right to consideration for the grant of license of the kind. Thus, justice of the case warrants a mandate for issuance of renewal.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement. A Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondent - State to grant to the petitioner the renewal of Certificate of Practice, within an outer limit of four weeks.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv