Bombay High Court
Shirish S/O Raphael Bhalerao vs The Union Of India, Ministry Of Law ... on 28 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1686 of 2016
Petitioner : Shirish son of Raphael Bhalerao, aged
about 61 years, Advocate, resident of 68,
Alashree Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square,
igAmravati Road, Nagpur
versus
Respondents : 1) The Union of India, Ministry of Law
And Justice, Department of Legal Affairs,
Notary Section, New Delhi-110 001, through
its Secretary
2) The Deputy Legal Advisor and the Competent
Authority, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Notary Section,
Room No. 439/A, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001
Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for petitioner
Shri S. A. Chaudhari, Special Counsel for respondents
Coram : Smt Vasanti A. Naik And
V. M. Deshpande, JJ
Dated : 28th April 2016
Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A. Naik, J)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the
communication/order of the respondent no. 2-Deputy Legal Advisor and the
Competent Authority dated 8.12.2015 rejecting the application of the
petitioner for renewal of the certificate to to practise as a Notary.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the
petitioner was required to make an application for renewal of the Certificate
of Practice as a Notary in terms of rule 8-B of the Notary Rules, 1952 six
months before the expiry of the validity period and though the petitioner has
not made an application by adhering to the said time-frame, in view of the
proviso to the said rule, the respondent no. 2 was empowered to relax the
condition of the requirement to apply within the time-frame. It is stated that
the powers under the proviso to rule 8-B of the Notary Rules, 1966 have not
been invoked by the respondent no. 2 before rejecting the application of the
petitioner.
4. Shri Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the respondents
supported the order of the respondent no. 2 and submitted that since the
application was not made by the petitioner for renewal of his Certificate of
Practice six months before the date of expiry of the validity period, the
application of the petitioner was rightly rejected. It is, however, fairly stated
on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that it does not appear from the impugned
order, that the respondent no. 2 has invoked the powers under the proviso to
rule 8-B of the Rules of 1956.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the provisions of rule 8-B of the Rules, it appears that the respondent no. 2 is
empowered to relax the condition in respect of time-frame, as provided by
rule 8-B and in certain cases, the condition in regard to the time-frame could
be relaxed. Though the petitioner has stated the reasons for the delay in
making the application under rule 8-B, the respondent no. 2 has not
adverted its mind to the said reasons and the application of the petitioner
was rejected without exercising the discretion under the proviso to rule 8-B of
the Rules.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 is
directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the
provisions of the proviso to rule 8-B of the Notary Rules, 1956 and pass an
appropriate order within a period of six weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
V. M. DESHPANDE, J SMT VASANTI A. NAIK, J
joshi
