Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Parasmal Soni on 6 February, 2010
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
1. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.310/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ABDUL WAHID SIDDIKI
2. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.250/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RAM KUMAR SHARMA
3. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.251/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S ROOP DAN RATNU
4 D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.254/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S GOPAL PAHAR
5. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.267/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S VIJAY KUMAR BHANOT
6. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.268/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S VITHAL DAS PUROHIT
7. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.292/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S OM PRAKASH KUMAWAT
8. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.293/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOHMMED RAFIQUE PATHAN
9. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.294/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S LAXMI LAL BHAGORA
10. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.295/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RATAN LAL SANKHALA
11. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.296/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S AMAR CHAND
12. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.297/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S SYED TAJ MOHAMMED
13. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.298/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BHERU LAL AHIR
14. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.301/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S VIMAL CHANDRA
15. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.302/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S POONAM CHAND
16. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.303/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SHIV PRAKASH KALARA
17. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.333/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SATISH KUMAR GARG
18. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.334/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SURENDRA MOHAN BANSAL
19. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.335/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANOHAR LAL BAPNA
20. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.336/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SAMPAT RAJ PATEL
21. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.337/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KARANI SINGH RATHORE
2
22. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.338/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S AKBAR ALI CHHIPA
23. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.339/2010
STATE OF RAJ.& ORS. V/S NACHHATTAR SINGH SIDHU
24. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.340/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RAM SWAROOP BHATI
25. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.355/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S PURSHOTTAN PRASAD JOSHI
26. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.357/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S PREM SINGH
27. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.358/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S LALIT KUMAR KHAMESARA
28. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.359/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RANJEET SINGH KUMPAWAT
29. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.360/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S GOPAL KRISHNA KABRA
30. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.361/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JIYA RAM GODARA
31. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.362/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S LAXMI LAL SURANA
32. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.365/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI
33. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.366/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ANIL KUMAR KALARA
34. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.367/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RAJA RAM VISHNOI
35. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.368/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S HIMMAT SINGH JUNEJA
36. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.369/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JAWAHAR LAL
37. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.370/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NAND KISHORE
38. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.371/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MURLI MANOHAR BORA
39. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.372/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SARDAR SINGH BARHAT
40. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.373/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S YASH PAL TAK
41. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.374/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BRAHAM PRAKASH SHARMA
42. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.381/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ANANDSWAROOP MODI
43. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.399/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BUDHI PRAKASH PUROHIT
3
44. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.400/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S LAL SINGH RATHORE
45. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.401/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S KAMLA PRASAD PALIWAL
46. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.402/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SOHAN LAL MEHTA
47. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.403/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NAVNEET KUMAR JAIN
48. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.404/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ARJUN UPADHYAY
49. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.405/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MADAN LAL JAIN
50. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.406/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SURESH CHANDRA SHROTRIYA
51. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.407/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SATYA NARAIN SONI
52. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.408/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANOHAR RAM BISHNOI
53. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.409/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S TRILOK DASHOTTAR
54. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.410/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.
55. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.411/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NARENDRA SINGH BHATI & ORS.
56. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.413/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S DURGA LAL KUMAHAR
57. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.414/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SMT. BHUWNESHWARI JAIN
58. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.415/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S UMMED RAJ
59. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.416/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S HARI MOHAN MAHARSHI
60. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.417/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S LAL SINGH PARMAR
61. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.419/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S SATYA NARAYAN
62. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.420/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN
63. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.421/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S CHATURBHUJ PALIWAL & ANR.
64. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.422/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JAGDISH SINGH SOLANI
65. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.423/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S INDU LAL PATIDAR
4
66. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.424/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S POONAM CHAND
67. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.425/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BHIM SINGH RAJVI
68. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.426/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S KHYALI LAL
69. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.427/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S OM PRAKASH JAIN
70. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.428/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S DURGA SHANKAR TIWARI
71 D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.429/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOD SINGH RATHORE
72 D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.430/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ABDUL GHAFOOR AJMERI
73 D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.431/2010
STATE OF RAJ, & ORS. V/S KRISHNA GOPAL BADMERA
74. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.432/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANOHAR SINGH RATHORE
75. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.433/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BABU LAL BORANA
76. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.434/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOHAN SINGH RATNU
77. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.440/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ASLAM KHAN RAMPURI
78. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.441/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S PARASMAL SONI
79. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.442/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KRISHNA GOPAL SONI
80. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.443/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOTI KISHAN PUROHIT
81. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.444/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KISHORI LAL SONI
82. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.445/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S BHERU LAL TELI
83. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.446/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SATYA NARAIN
84. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.447/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ASRAR AHMED
85. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.448/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S VIJAY RAJ PARAKH
86. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.450/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SMT. BASANTI MATHUR
87. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.453/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SANJEEV BHATNAGAR
5
88. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.454/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S SHANTI LAL
89. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.455/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KAMAL KUMAR SHRIMALI
90. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.468/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S VISHAN SINGH GODARA
91. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.472/2010
STATE OF RAJ.& ORS. V/S YASHWANT SINGH ARYA SHANKHALA
92. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02732/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NEETA SINGH
93. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02875/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RAM KISHORE CHOUDHARY & ORS
94. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02879/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NIZAM KHAN
95. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02923/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOOL SINGH SHEKHAWAT
96. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02925/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JOGENDRA SINGH MONGA
97. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.02927/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NARAYAN SINGH
98. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03001/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S AJAY KUMAR SAXENA
99. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03009/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KULVINDER SINGH
100. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03010/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KRISHNA BALDEV MIDHA
101. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03011/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MUKESH KUMAR DEVPURA
102. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03012/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BHANWAR LAL SAINI
103. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03013/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RESHAM SINGH
104. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03025/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BANWARI LAL DIXIT
105. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03026/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S JEEYA RAM RAYAL
106. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03027/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KISHAN LAL JAT
107. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03029/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S OM PRAKASH SHARMA
108. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03030/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JAGDISH CHANDRA
6
109. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03040/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ASHOK KUMAR BAGARIA
110. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03080/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S AJIT SINGH SOLNKI
111. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03081/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SAJJANMAL JAIN
112. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03083/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S HANUMAN PRASAD TIWARI
113. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03087/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RATAN LAL RAJORA
114. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03090/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANGILAL KHANDELWAL
115. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03091/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S GAJRAJ SINGH RAJVI
116. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03097/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MADAN LAL LUHAR
117. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03098/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BANSHI LAL LADHA
118. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03114/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MUNIR GANI SHEIKH
119. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03141/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANGAT RAM
120. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03142/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S GAUTAM PRAKASH SHARMA
121. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03143/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SOAN DAN
122. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03144/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S TARUN MEHTA & ORS.
123. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03166/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S IQBAL HUSSAIN QUARESSY
124. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03168/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NATWAR LAL CHOUBISA
125. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03239/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S. CHHOTU RAM
126. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03240/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NIHAL CHAND
127. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03241/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S GOPAL KRISHAN GAUR
128. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03245/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S LALCHAND
129. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03246/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S JETH MAL SAIN
130. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03247/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S CHANDAN SINGH BHATI
7
131. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03248/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RATAN SINGH MEHTA
132. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03253/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SURENDRA PAL GOYAL
133. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03254/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S CHANDRA PRAKASH SHARMA
134. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03255/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MOHD. ISHAQUE RANDER
135. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03265/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S MANOHAR SINGH RAJPUT
136. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03454/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BAJRANG SINGH SHEKHAWAT
137. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03455/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S PRADEEP KUMAR
138. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03456/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S ATMA SINGH NANDA
139. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03457/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S RAM SHANKER DADHEECH
140. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03458/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S KISHAN GOPAL CHITLANGI
141. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03471/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S UMMED SINGH
142. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03472/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S HIMMATA RAM GEHLOT
143 D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03473/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BABU LAL SANKHLA
144. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03475/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SURESH CHANDRA MEHER
145. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03623/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S NARAYAN RAM KUMHAR
146. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.03624/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S UMMED MAL SURANA
147. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.04188/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. V/S. MAKHAN SINGH
148. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.04377/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S BILAKI DAS CHHANGANI
149. D.B.C. SPECIAL APPEAL(W) No.04378/2010
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. V/S SULTAN SINGH DEORA
Date of Judgment::- 6.12.2010
8
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Arun Mishra
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prakash Tatia
Mr.R.L.Jangid, Additional Advocate General for the
appellants.
Mr.Mahendra Singh Singhvi with Mr.Manish Patel,
Mr.I.R.Chaudhary, Mr.Vikram Singh Chaudhary,
Mr.C.R.Jhakhar, Mr.Manish Shishodia, Mr.R.S.Shekhawat,
Mr.Ramandeep Singh and Mr.Ramesh Purohit for the
respondents.
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Arun Mishra, CJ)
The question involved in these intra-court appeals is whether the State could have refused renewal of certificate of practice granted to the Notaries? More than 350 renewals have been refused at one stroke on the ground that new procedure for appointment of Notary has been prescribed by amending Rules 7, 7A and 7B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") in which interviews are also necessary. The Single Bench has quashed the decision of the State refusing to renew certificate of practice by identically worded orders in all cases. Consequently, the State has travelled to the Division Bench by way of filing these intra-court appeals.
It is not in dispute that after following due procedure for appointment prevailing at the relevant time, Notaries were duly appointed. It is also not the case that their renewals have been refused on the ground that they have committed any mistake or have been found unfit otherwise. Five years' period for which they were appointed has expired. Consequently, they have applied for renewal under section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the 9 Act") read with Rule 8B, which was inserted in the Rules by way of amendment with effect from 31.10.2007.
The case set-up by the Notaries is that the procedure for appointment prescribed under the amended Rules could not have been applied for renewal. Renewal could not have been refused on the ground that new procedure for appointment has been prescribed by amending Rules particularly Rules 4, 6, 7A, 7B with effect from 1.3.2009. The action of the State is illegal, arbitrary and without opportunity of hearing. They have applied in time. Renewal could not have been refused arbitrarily. The applications for renewal were kept pending for years together and all of sudden, applications have been disposed of by similarly worded orders issued on different dates. There is no valid reason for non-renewal. Consequently, the order of non- renewal be quashed.
In the return filed by the State, it is contended that though the applications for renewal were moved, period for which certificate of practice was issued had expired. Section 5(2) of the Act has been amended. Earlier it was necessary to issue renewal as the word "shall" was used in Section 5(2) and now it has been substituted by the word "may" by amending Section 5(2). Consequently, renewal cannot be claimed as of right. In view of the amendment, which has been made with effect from 1.3.2009, a complete new procedure has been laid down under Rule 6, 7, 7A and 7B. The State has taken a policy decision that all such appointments as Notary shall be made in accordance with the amended provisions of the Rules, more so, in view of the provision that if the competent authority does not reject the application then he may, if thinks fit, ascertain from any Bar 10 Council, Bar Association, Incorporated Law Society or other authority in the area as to suitability of the candidate. Opportunity of filing representation has also been provided under Rule 7. Thereafter, report has to be made by the competent authority. There is also a provision that interviews can also be conducted under Rule 7A so as to provide equal opportunity to all Advocates entitled to make application for appointment as Notary. The policy decision has been taken not to renew the pending applications. Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 7B incorporated with effect from 1.3.2009 to the effect that all the memorials received by the competent authority and pending shall be processed and examined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2009. Thus, there is no option with the State except to follow the aforesaid mandate of Rule 7B. Consequently, the policy decision, which has been taken, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The question of civil consequences does not arise. Renewal cannot be claimed as of right. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Single Bench has opined that procedure for appointment of Notary cannot be applied to the renewal applications. Renewal could not have been refused on the ground of amendment made with effect from 1.3.2009 in the procedure for appointment of Notary. The policy decision of the State has been held to be illegal and arbitrary. Renewal could not have been refused in blanket manner without due application of mind when it is not the finding that any disqualification has been 11 incurred so as to refuse renewal.
Mr.R.L.Jangid, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that once the Rules have been amended and fair procedure has been prescribed under the amended Rules, particularly Rules 6, 7, and 7A, which have been amended with effect from 1.3.2009, it has been considered appropriate not to renew the pending applications for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary and in doing so, no illegality has been committed by the State. He has placed reliance upon transitional provision as contained in Rule 7B that all memorials have to be dealt with in accordance with the the provisions of the Rules as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2009. Thus, the applications, which were pending, were required to be dealt with under the amended provisions of the Rules by asking the incumbents whose applications were pending, to apply afresh for appointment of Notary as that would be the proper and fair act in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India so as to give opportunity to all Advocates desirous to apply and stake their claim. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that it is open to the State to change its policy and to act as per amended Rules and for that, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh V/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006(5) SCC
702). He has further submitted that renewal cannot be claimed as of right. Once the period of certificate of practice as Notary stood expired, renewal could have been refused on the ground that they should participate as per new procedure prescribed under the amended Rules.
12
Mr.Mahendra Singh Singhvi with Mr.Manish Patel, Mr.I.R.Chaudhary, Mr.Vikram Singh Chaudhary, Mr.C.R.Jhakhar, Mr.Manish Shishodia, Mr.R.S.Shekhawat, Mr.Ramandeep Singh and Mr.Ramesh Purohit appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that renewal is a right and the procedure of appointment could not have been applied to the renewal. Earlier renewal could have been claimed as of right as the word "shall" was used in Section 5(2) of the Act and now by substituting the word "shall" by the word "may", a discretion has been given to reject the application in case incumbent has not applied within the prescribed period or has incurred any disqualification as prescribed under section 10 of the Act. They have further submitted that efforts have been made under the guise of impugned order to substitute the existing Notaries by new incumbents, which is impermissible. The transitional provision as provided in Rule 7B is not applicable as that deals with only the applications pending for appointment of Notary and not for renewal. Renewal of certificate of practice is dealt with in Rule 8B which has been incorporated by way of amendment with effect from 31.10.2007. The action of the State is contrary to the statutory provisions. No such policy in derogation to the Rules could have been evolved by the State which is repugnant to the statutory protection given to the Notaries. Reliance has also been placed on various decisions which will be referred later on.
Before dealing with the above submissions, we deem it proper to consider the Scheme of the Notaries Act.
The power to appoint Notaries has been given to the Central Government for whole or any part of India and to the State Government for whole or any part of 13 the State and a person, who possesses the requisite qualifications may be appointed as Notary. Section 5 of the Act deals with the entry of names in the register and issue or renewal of certificate of practice. Section 5(2) before amendment read thus:-
"5(2). Every such notary who wishes to continue to practise after the expiry of the period for which his certificate of practice has been issued under this section shall, on application made to the Government appointing him and payment of the prescribed fee, if any, be entitled to have his certificate of practice renewed for three years at a time."
The amended provision is to the following effect:-
"5(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."
With respect to renewal, there is yet another provision as contained in Rule 8B, which was inserted in the Rules with effect from 31.10.2007. Rule 8B is quoted below:-
"8-B. Renewal of Certificate of Practice:- 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 of 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 specific period."14
From bare reading of Section 5(2) of the Act, it is apparent that the Government appointing notary, may, on receipt of application and prescribed fee, renew the certificate of practice for five years' at a time. The substitution of word "may" cannot give arbitrary power to refuse renewal of certificate of practice. It has to be read alongwith Rule 8B. In case the application for renewal of certificate of practice has not been filed within the prescribed period i.e. before three months from the date of expiry of its period of validity, the Government may refuse renewal if it has not considered fit and appropriate to relax the condition of submission of application for renewal of certificate of practice before the above period. The Government may also refuse to renew the certificate in case any of the disqualifications has been incurred, which are prescribed in Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 provides that the name of any Notary can be removed in case he is an undischarged insolvent; or has been found to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practice as a Notary or is convicted by any court for an offence involving moral turpitude. It is not the case of the State Government that non-renewal of certificate of practice was on the ground of incurring of any of the disqualifications or any misconduct.
The Notaries Rules have undergone change with effect from 1.3.2009. Rule 4 has been amended to the effect that a person may make an application for appointment as a notary through the concerned District Judge or the Presiding Officer of the Court or Tribunal where he practices as an Advocate, in the Form of 15 memorial addressed to such officer or authority. Rule 6 provides that the competent authority shall examine every application received by him and if he is satisfied that application is not complete in all respects or the applicant does not possesses the qualifications specified in Rule 3, he can reject the application summarily. Rule 7 provides the change in the existing Rule to the effect that applicant may be asked to appear before the Interview Board. Rule 7A, which has been incorporated with effect from 1.3.2009, provides for constitution of the Interview Board and the competent authority shall inform the applicant to appear before the Interview Board and thereafter, recommendations are to be submitted to the appropriate Government for appointment as Notary. Rule 7B is a transitional provision which provides that all memorials received by the competent authority till 28th February, 2009 and which are pending shall be processed and examined in accordance with the provisions of the rules as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2009. Rules 6, 7, 7A and 7B are quoted below:-
"Rule 6 Preliminary action on application (1) The competent authority shall examine every application received by him and if he is satisfied that the application is not complete in all respects or the applicant does not possess the qualifications specified in Rule 3, or that any previous application of the applicant for appointment as a notary was rejected within six months before the date of the application, shall reject it summarily and inform the applicant accordingly.
(2) If the competent authority does not reject the application under sub-rule (1)-
(a)(****)
(b) he may, if he thinks fit, ascertain from any 16 Bar Council, Bar Association, Incorporated Law Society or other authority in the area where the applicant proposes to practice, the objections, if any, to the appointment of the applicant as notary, to be submitted within the time fixed for the purpose."
"Rule-7. Recommendations of the Competent Authority.- (1) The competent authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received within the time fixed under sub- rule (2) of Rule 6, make a report to the appropriate Government recommending that the applicant may be allowed to appear before the interview Board.
(2) The Competent Authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne.
(3) In making his recommendations under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely:-
(a) whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary;
(b) whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practise and the number of existing notaries practicing in the area, it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area;
(c) whether, having regard to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objections, if any raised in respect of his appointment as a notary, and in the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary.17
(d) where the applicant belongs to a firm of local practitioner, whether having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; and
(e) where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants."
"Rule 7A Constitution of the Interview Board.-
(1) If the appropriate Government allows that the applicant may be asked to appear before the Interview Board, the competent authority shall inform the applicant to appear before the Interview Board, on the date, time and place fixed, to judge the competency of the applicant for being appointed as Notary. The interview Board shall submit its recommendations to the appropriate Government.
(2) For the said purpose, one or more Interview Boards shall be constituted by the appropriate Government from amongst its officers dealing with legal matters and the Chairperson of every Interview Board shall be an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Law Officer of that Government."
"Rule 7B Transitional provision.-(1) All the memorials received by the Competent Authority till 28th February, 2009 and which are pending shall be processed/examined in accordance with the provisions of the rules as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2009;
(2) The fresh memorials shall only be submitted on or after 1st July, 2009."
The aforesaid provisions including transitional provision as contained in Rule 7B are applicable with 18 respect to the memorials pending for fresh appointment and not for renewal. Renewal provision is provided in Section 5(2) read with Rule 8B. Refusal to renew certificate of practice cannot be based on such a policy decision so as to give opportunity to all for applying afresh. The action smacks of not only arbitrariness, but efforts are also being made to substitute the existing incumbents by fresh incumbents under the guise of refusal of renewal of certificate of practice.
The Apex Court in M/s Gurucharan Singh Baldev Singh V/s Yashwant Singh and ors. (AIR 1992 SC 180) while dealing with the provisions of renewal under the Motor Vehicles Act, has considered the aspect whether renewal is a right. The Apex Court has laid down that holder of permit has a civil right which could be enforced in a court of law. If a Regional Transport Authority refused renewal even though the person applying for renewal was in all respects similar to other new applicants, then it could be corrected either by the tribunal or by the writ petition under Article
226. Therefore, it is a right which is enforceable in law. This right accrued to the appellant as he had already applied for renewal and his application had been notified. The legal machinery was set in motion by him. He, therefore, had a right to get his application for renewal processed and considered in accordance with 1939 Act. It would be too artificial to say that it was not a right or it had not accrued under 1939 Act. Their Lordships also considered the decision in Cheran Transport Co.Ltd. V/s Kanan Lorry Service ((1977) 2 SCR 389 = AIR 1977 SC 1564) laying down that the setting of a legal process in accordance with law for 19 renewal of permit was itself a right.
It is apparent that once appointment as Notary had been duly made after following due procedure prescribed at the relevant time, renewal could have been refused on incurring any of the disqualifications or any misconduct as mentioned in Section 10 or on other such similar ground. It is not the case of the State that refusal of renewal of certificate of practice was on the ground of incurring any disqualification or misconduct. The ground adopted was that the new procedure prescribed for appointment of Notary requires now that person may be interviewed by the Interview Board. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted for the reasons that the new procedure as prescribed under Rule 7, 7A and 7B of the Rules is for fresh appointment and not for renewal and incumbents could not have been subjected to rigour of filing of fresh applications and to follow the procedure prescribed for appointment of Notary afresh as provided in Rule 4, 6, 7, 7A and 8. Submission made that now there is provision for interview before appointment hence renewal has been refused, however, is not the case of the State also that any one of the incumbents was called for interview for the purpose of renewal and was not found fit. We make it clear that we are not deciding whether the State has a right to call Notary for interview for the purposes of renewal. We are adjudging the validity of action of the State refusing renewal of certificate of practice. It has acted without any reason or rhyme. Refusal of renewal of certificate of practice of more than 350 incumbents under the guise of new procedure is per se impermissible and nothing else then arbitrariness which cannot be permitted to prevail. 20
In State of UP and ors. V/s Daulat Ram Gupta (AIR 2002 SC 1633),it has been laid down that refusal of license can be ordered in accordance with the provisions under the Statute and not on other consideration.
In D.Nataraja Mudaliar V/s The State Transport Authority, Madras (AIR 1979 SC 114) it has been laid down that while considering the renewal in the context of Motor Vehicles Act, the authority acts quasi- judicially and its decision must be based on proper consideration.
In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. V/s State of UP and ors. (AIR 1991 SC 537), the Apex Court considered the question of removal of em bloc of all District Govt. counsel in the State and it has been laid down that the State's action cannot be arbitrary and it can be reviewed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordship observed that in the case of Public Prosecutors, the additional public element flowing from statutory provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, undoubtedly, invest the Public Prosecutors with the attribute of holder of a public office which cannot be whittled down by the assertion that their engagement is purely professional between a client and his lawyer with no public element attracting to it.
In the instant case, the Notaries stand at a better footing. They have statutory protection of the Act and the Rules. We do not find any valid reason behind the policy of the State of throwing away the existing Notaries at one stroke. The incumbents have gained experience and have even opted for notary at the cost of their practice. Thus, renewal being their 21 civil right could not have been refused on the aforesaid ground.
In State of Kerala & etc.etc. V/s K.U.Narayana Poduval and etc.etc. (AIR 1992 Kerala 152) while considering unamended Section 5(2) of the Act, the Division Bench of Kerala High Cort has opined that right of renewal is automatic as the word "shall" was used and there was no discetion vested in the Government to restrict the right only to two renewals.
In our opinion, now by substitution of word "may", the State is not conferred with the power to act arbitrarily. It has to act on relevant consideration.
In A.Gourisanker V/s State of Kerala (AIR 1991 Kerala 225), it has been observed that while exercising the power to renew, State has to function within the framework of the rules framed by the Central Government. Imposing restriction to practice beyond period of six years as Notary has been held to be arbitrary and uncalled for. Experience in relation to the functioning of notaries will show that there have been reputed legal firms which have, from generation to generation carried on with great credit and honour the onerous and responsible duties to be discharged by a notary public. It will be manifestly against public interest if one who has an accumulated experience of a sizable six years is scuttled merely for giving another a new job opportunity. An advance age is only an added advantage for performing the duties of an ancient legal institution. "Age "Samuel Johnson said" will perform the promises of youth. The observations made in para 16 of the judgment is quoted below:-
"16. The present is a case where a direct and daring aggression has been directed against the 22 core scheme of the Notaries Act. That cannot be permitted having regard to the limited leverage and State Government enjoys under the statutory scheme. Imposing a restrictive period for practising as a notary- a six year period is unduly restrictive- is on the face of it arbitrary and uncalled for. Experience in relation to the functioning of notaries will show that there have been reputed legal firms which have, from generation to generation carried on with great credit and honour the onerous and responsible duties to be discharged by a notary public. It will be manifestly against public interest if one who has an accumulated experience of a sizable six years is scuttled merely for giving another a new 'job opportunity'. An advance age is only an added advantage for performing the duties of an ancient legal institution. "Age, "Samuel Johnson said,"
will perform the promises of youth."(The quotation is from an Article in 104 Harvard Law Review, November, 1990 page 1)."
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of he considered opinion that the decision of the State refusing renewal of certificate of practice as Notary cannot be said to be valid. It is beyond the purview of the Act and the Rules and is rather in derogation of the procedure prescribed and the decision has been taken on irrelevant consideration. The procedure for appointment of Notary which was prescribed with effect from 1.3.2009 could not have been applied in the case of renewal of certificate of practice as Notary which was pending. In the circumstances, the State Government has been rightly ordered to decide the applications for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary afresh including the applications for condonation of delay under the proviso to Rule 8B of the Rules.
23Resultantly, we find that challenge to the order passed by the Single Bench is not sustainable. These intra-court appeals being meritless are hereby dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs as incurred.
(Prakash Tatia)J. (Arun Mishra)C.J. Parmar