Delhi High Court
B.S.Randhawa vs Union Of India on 19 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6042/2011
B.S.RANDHAWA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary & Mr. Khalid
Arshad, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 19.08.2011
1. The petitioner was on 20th August, 1997 appointed as a Notary, for a
period of three years with effect from 12th August, 1997. On an application for
renewal, his certificate for practice was renewal for a period of five years with
effect from 12th August, 2000 and which period expired on 11th August, 2005.
2. During the said time in the year 2003 there was a complaint against the
petitioner of which reply was sent by the petitioner but no further action
appears to have been taken and the petitioner continued to practice as a Notary
as aforesaid till 11th August, 2005.
3. The petitioner again applied for renewal but which was refused vide
letter dated 17th February, 2006. The petitioner claims to have continued to
represent/apply but the bank draft submitted by him along with the application
was returned on 16th February, 2009. The petitioner claims to have again yet
applied in the year 2010 and has filed this petition seeking direction for
renewal of his certificate of practice as a Notary.
4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the
right of the petitioner to renewal of his license. Though the counsel for the
petitioner has been unable to show any, the counsel for the respondent
appearing on advance notice has invited attention to Section 5 of the Notaries
Act, 1952 and to Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 to contend that the
discretion to renew the license is of the Government as the Appointing
Authority and there is no right of a person appointed as a Notary to renewal
term after term.
5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no inquiry under
Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 was conducted pursuant to the complaint
against the petitioner and without conducting such an inquiry, the respondent
could not have denied renewal to the petitioner.
6. In this regard it may be noticed that the respondent in its letter dated 17 th
February, 2006 refusing renewal to the petitioner has not stated any reason and
has not cited the complaint aforesaid as a reason for refusal. The respondent
having not chosen to initiate any inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 13 of
the Rules and having not used the said complaint as a reason for refusing
renewal to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot urge that he has not been given
an opportunity to defend himself.
7. Else, the discretion to appoint or not to appoint or renew or not to renew
has to be of the Appointing Authority and if the contention of the petitioner
were to be accepted then all those who fulfill the qualifications for appointment
would be entitled to seek a mandamus for appointment and which cannot be
permitted.
8. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
CM No.12192/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 19, 2011/bs..
