Union Of India vs U S Nagaraja
2022 Latest Caselaw 3237 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

               W.A.No.1018/2021 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN :
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
FORMERLY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,
COMPANY AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
NOTARY CELL, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110001.                             ...APPELLANT

                 (BY SRI KUMAR.M.N., CGC.)

AND :
U.S.NAGARAJA
S/O SUBBARAYA.K,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
ADVOCATE, R/AT NO.802(A), HOSAMANE,
AGRAHARA ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.              ...RESPONDENT

           (BY SRI KSEOF JIDDSOM, ADV. (EXPIRED);
                 SRI U.S.NAGARAJA - ABSENT.)

      THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.26130/2015 [GM-
RES] DATED 06.11.2020.
                             -2-



     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is directed against the order

dated 06.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.26130/2015 by the

learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by

the respondent has been disposed of setting aside the

order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the appellant and

further directing the appellant to re-examine the

renewal application and issue certificate of 'practice of

Notary Public' at the earliest.

2. The appellant appointed the respondent as

Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 ['Act' for short]

authorizing the respondent to practice as Notary

throughout Chikkamagaluru City and District for a

period of five years commencing from 29.06.2000 and

the same was renewed from time to time. The renewal

application submitted by the respondent on 29.12.2014

came to be rejected on the ground that it was delayed by

10 days. Being aggrieved by the said action of the

appellant, the respondent has approached the Writ

Court. The Writ Court having allowed the writ petition,

the appellant is in Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the positive direction issued by the learned Single

Judge to issue certificate of Practice of Notary Public

would run against the provisions of the Act and Rules.

Unless the compliance is made in terms of the Rule 8B

of the Notary Rules, 1956, the appellant cannot renew

the application filed belatedly. Learned counsel though

admitted that the discretion is left with the appellant to

condone the delay in terms of proviso to Rule 8B of the

Rules, 1956, submitted that the same should be in

compliance of the other requisite criteria provided under

the Act and Rules and accordingly seeks for

modification of the order impugned herein.

4. We have carefully considered the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant and perused the material on record.

5. It is not in dispute that in identical

circumstances, the appellant has condoned the delay of

nearly 32 days in renewing of the application in respect

of renewal of the Notary certificates or the license.

Having noticed this discrimination made by the

appellant, the Writ Court in the background of the case

of delay of 10 days in submitting the renewal

application has proceeded to allow the Writ Petition.

6. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant can

exercise the power under the proviso to Rule 8B of the

Rules, 1956 to condone the delay in filing the renewal

application. In our considered view, delay of 10 days is

not an inordinate delay and it is not unreasonable to

condone the same exercising the power vested with the

appellant. Thus, the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel to modify the order would fail.

We find no merit in the appeal as the order of the

learned Single Judge is a well considered order having

regard to the factual aspects and the legal position.

Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

The appellant shall comply the order as directed

by the Writ Court within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In view of dismissal of the main matter, all the

pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.