Delhi High Court
Neelam Sharma vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8503/2015
NEELAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan & Ms.
Surekha Bhargavan, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 11.09.2015
1. The petition impugns the refusal by the respondent of renewal of the
Certificate of Practice as Notary of the petitioner for the reason of the
petitioner having not applied for such renewal within a period of six months
before the expiry of validity of the Certificate earlier issued to her, as
required by Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956. There was a delay of 11
days according to the petitioner and of 39 days according to the counsel for
the respondent appearing on advance notice, in applying for renewal.
2. The proviso to Rule 8B supra empowers the appropriate government
to relax the condition of submission of application for renewal of Certificate
of Practice before the aforesaid period of six months. It is the case of the
petitioner that she, in her application dated 28th May, 2015, had given
reasons for the delay in applying for renewal and the respondents have not
considered the said reasons.
3. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice states that
the Rule 8B supra does not confer any right on a person granted Certificate
of Practice as Notary to have his / her Certificate renewed for a further
period of five years and the respondents are entitled to refuse renewal in their
discretion.
4. The aforesaid argument does not appear to be correct. When the
statutory Rules provide for a renewal and that too without any conditions,
ordinarily the appropriate government would not be entitled to deny such
renewal save for cogent reasons. Moreover, in the present case no reasons
whatsoever have been given for denying the renewal of the Certificate of
Practice. All that the respondent has done vide impugned order dated 31st
August, 2015 is to deny the renewal on the ground of delay.
5. The counsel for the respondent states that on notice being issued, the
reasons if any for denying renewal will be set out in the counter affidavit.
6. In my opinion, the setting out of reasons in the counter affidavit would
not serve any purpose inasmuch as the petitioner then would have no reason
to challenge the same.
7. The Supreme Court in D. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. The State Transport
Authority, Madras (1978) 4 SCC 290 finding that the holder of a road
transport Permit ordinarily has a right of renewal held that unless it is shown
that outweighing reasons of public interest lead to a contrary result, a Permit
holder has a right to fair consideration of his claim for renewal. A Division
Bench of this Court in International Trading Company Vs. Union of India
AIR 2002 Delhi 488 (though overruled on another aspect) in Union of
India Vs. International Trading Company (2003) 5 SCC 437 also held that
renewal of a Permit is a valuable right which can be refused only on cogent
and valid grounds. It was further held that non-renewal of an existing
licence is usually a most serious matter than refusal to grant a licence.
Similarly, in State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Nigam (2013) 3 SCC 372
finding that the request for renewal in accordance with the rules had been
rejected without proper consideration, it was held that the right of
consideration for renewal is a legitimate right and an applicant can be
deprived of such right and be declined renewal where work is unsatisfactory.
8. In the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this
petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the application of the
petitioner for renewal of licence, after considering the reasons given by the
petitioner for the delay in applying for renewal and also set out the reasons /
grounds, if any for otherwise denying the renewal to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner, if so desire, may within 10 days hereof submit
more particulars / documents in support of her explanation for
the delay in applying for renewal.
(ii) The respondent shall thereafter, within six weeks of the receipt
of such further documents from the petitioner, consider the
grounds given by the petitioner for condonation of delay in
applying for renewal and shall take a reasoned decision thereon.
(iii) The respondent, if of the opinion that the petitioner is to be
denied the renewal for any other reason, would, after notifying
the petitioner of the said reason and after giving the petitioner
an opportunity of being heard thereon within the subject period
of six weeks, shall pass a reasoned order within a period of
three months from today.
(iv) Needless to state that if the petitioner remains aggrieved, shall
have her remedies.
A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court
Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
'gsr'..
