Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 & 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.

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 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 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.