K.Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

K.Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

            K.ABDUL JABBAR
            AGED 64 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O. K. MOHAMMED (LATE)
            JASMINE MAHAL, KOVILAKAM ROAD, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT PIN 676 121

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
            SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA LAW
            DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

    2       THE LAW SECRETARY
            LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

            BY ADVS.
            SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.17859/2016                  -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a practising Lawyer. He was appointed as a Notary Public under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 ('the Act, 1952) and the Rules framed thereunder, in the year 1997. This appointment was renewed from time to time and was valid up to 20-11-2015. Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules 1956 required the petitioner to apply for renewal of the certificate of practice 6 months before the date of expiry of the period of validity and going by the said provision the petitioner ought to have applied for renewal of the certificate of practice on or before 20-05-2015. However the petitioner submitted an application for renewal (Ext.P2) only on 19-08-2015. Though the petitioner prayed for condondation of delay, the Government by Ext.P4 order did not find any ground to condone the delay and rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only reason in Ext.P4 order is that the petitioner being a Notary Public ought to have been aware of the requirement to apply 6 months prior to the date of expiry of the certificate of practice for its renewal and therefore the Government finds no reason to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal of the certificate of practice. It is submitted that at the relevant time the provisions of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules 1956 permitted the Government to consider an application filed beyond time. W.P (C) No.17859/2016 -3-

3. Learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and contends that there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P4 order warranting interference at the hands of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner was bound to file an application 6 months prior to the expiry of the current certificate of practice and having not done so, his application for renewal could not have been considered by the Government. It is submitted that as is evident from Ext.P4 order, the only reason stated by the petitioner at the time of hearing before the Government was that he was not aware that an application for renewal had to be filed 6 months prior to the date of expiry of the current certificate of practice. The learned Government Pleader also points out that Rule 8B has been amended with effect from 05-11-2019 and presently there is no provision for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having perused Ext.P4 order, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Government. The only reason stated in Ext.P4 for refusing the consideration of application filed by the petitioner is that as a Notary Public the petitioner ought to have been aware that the application should have been filed at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the current certificate of practice. This in my view cannot be a justification for refusing the application for condoning the W.P (C) No.17859/2016 -4- delay, if there are other genuine reasons for condonation of delay. Therefore Ext.P4 order will stand quashed. The application filed by the petitioner for renewal of his certificate of practice issued under the Notaries Act and the Rules framed thereunder will stand restored to file. The 2 nd respondent shall pass fresh orders on the application filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative. Since the application filed by the petitioner was in the year 2015, the application of the petitioner shall be considered with reference to the provisions of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 as stood at the relevant time. The 2nd respondent shall endeavour to pass orders on Ext.P2 as directed above within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG W.P (C) No.17859/2016 -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17859/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE VIDE REGISTRATION NO 7/97/MPM DATED 04-09-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02-05-2015 FOR RENEWAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY DATED 19-08-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-01-2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO 19521/H3/2015/LAW DATED 18-01-2016