Madhya Pradesh High Court
Soneram Yadav vs State Of M.P. on 3 August, 2017
W.P. No.4389/2011 1
(Soneram Yadav Vs. State of M.P.)
3.8.2017.
Shri J.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 9.5.2011, whereby the registration certificate of the petitioner to practice as a notary has been cancelled from the date of its renewal i.e. 4.6.2005 by the State Government, Law and Legislative Affairs Department.
It is petitioner's contention that he has been working as notary in the district of Sheopur since 9.11.1983 when his name was entered in the Register of Notaries maintained by the respondent/department as is required to be maintained under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that act of the respondent in issuing the impugned order, Annexure P/1, and consequential order issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Sheopur, on 26.5.2011, Annexure P/1-A asking the petitioner to stop work of notary with immediate effect and surrender original certificate of working as a notary, are bad in law and in fact in violation of the provisions of natural justice. They are also violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, petitioner, who is working as a senior citizen, needs to be dealt with leniently and the impugned orders deserve to be recalled and set aside.
It is petitioner's contention that his certificate for registration as notary was renewed by the State Government vide order dated 31st May, 2005. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC on the complaint of one Rakesh Bansal, in which cognizance for the aforementioned offences W.P. No.4389/2011 2 was taken, against which M.Cr.C.No.3802/2002 (Soneram Yadav vs. Rakesh Kumar Bansal & Anr.) was filed, wherein this Court was pleased to hold that if the document requires requisite stamp duty as well as registration, whether a notary can be permitted to execute the document which is causing financial loss to the exchequer is also required to be examined by the State Government. In this state of affairs, it will be appropriate that the State Government or the Authority competent to examine the question and may hold suo motu enquiry under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. It shall also be enquired whether a Notary can authenticate or execute documents before him without paying the requisite stamp duty on the documents which are compulsorily to be registered which is causing financial loss to the public exchequer. It was also observed that since complaint is serious in nature relating to financial loss to the State, it is expected that either the competent authority of the State Government shall enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is petitioner's contention that this misc. criminal case as was filed by him was withdrawn with liberty to raise legal objections available to him at the time of framing of charges before the trial Court. But the above observations were made before parting with the case. In view of such orders of this High Court, petitioner was informed that an enquiry has been instituted and he may file his reply to the said enquiry by 24.10.2007. Petitioner had filed his reply which is available as Annexure P/5 on record and thereafter it is petitioner's contention that JMFC, Vijaypur, Distt. Sheopur, vide order dated 18.11.2009 had quashed the criminal case against the petitioner. In view of such matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 which provides W.P. No.4389/2011 3 for inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a notary. It is petitioner's contention that punishment is mentioned under sub-rule 12(b) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and it includes cancelling the certificate of practice and perpetually debarring the notary from practice or suspending him from practice for a specified period or letting him off with a warning, according to the nature and gravity of the misconduct of the notary proved. Learned counsel submits that except these punishments, no other punishment could have been inflicted on the petitioner, therefore, notification of removal of the petitioner is liable to the quashed.
In this connection, Rule 13(13) is perused which provides for removal of the name of any notary from the Register of Notaries from practice, as the case may be, shall be notified in Official Gazette and shall also be communicated in writing to the notary concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order, Annexure P/1, is in violation of the provisions of Rule 13 inasmuch as Rule 13(13) categorically provides for removal of the name of any notary from the Register of Notaries and thus the punishment which has been inflicted on the petitioner is very much part of the Rules. Further the act of delinquency committed by the petitioner cannot be excused or ignored as that of a minor nature inasmuch as petitioner was causing substantial loss to the revenue of the State. This aspect has been considered by the authorities and it is apparent from the return filed by the respondents, enclosing a copy of notice dated 17.4.2006 issued to the petitioner which was not served on the petitioner, therefore, notice was sent through District and Sessions Judge, Sheopur, and same was served through District Judge, Sheopur, and thereafter petitioner had filed his reply as is contained in Annexure R/6. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the W.P. No.4389/2011 4 Special Judge (Atrocities), copy of such report as was given by Special Judge (Atrocities) Sheopur on 5.12.2007 is on record. In the enquiry report, it has been categorically mentioned that it is not expected from a notary to authenticate a document, registration of which is necessary but which is not registered with a view to evade stamp duty. Shri Soneram Yadav was expected to ask the party to have affixed proper stamp duty on such document so that no loss could have been caused to the State, but Shri Soneram Yadav against the provisions contained in the Stamp Act, has verified the said sale agreement which is a misconduct, and therefore, a categorical finding of misconduct has been recorded by the enqiury officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner except pleading that petitioner is a senior citizen, has failed to point out any ground to negativate or contradict the enquiry report submitted by the Special Judge. In absence of there being any rebuttal to the enquiry report, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge ms/-