Ravoof P.P vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 19570 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 15736 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RAVOOF P.P.
          AGED 46 YEARS
          S/O. PAREED P.P., PAREECHINTE PURAKKAL, TANUR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302.

          BY ADVS.
          P.T.SHEEJISH
          P.K.PURUSH
          HARIKIRAN
          JASHITHA VIJAYAN
          STEPHY GRACE RAJ
          A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)


RESPONDENTS:

          UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND
          JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, 4TH FLOOR, A-
          WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.
          BY ADV SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.15736/2021
                                      2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
        --------------------------------------
                W.P.(C)No.15736 of 2021
        --------------------------------------
        Dated this the 17th day of September 2021

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a practicing lawyer. The

petitioner was appointed as Notary Public for a

period of five years from 20.09.2007. Ext.P1 is the

Certificate of Practice dated 20.09.2007 issued by

the Government of India. Subsequently, the

Department of Legal Affairs(Notary Cell)functioning

under the respondent had extended the period of

appointment of the petitioner as Notary Public for a

further period of 5 years from 20.09.2012 to

20.09.2017 as per the proceedings dated 27.08.2012.

Ext.P2 is the copy of the communication issued to

the petitioner. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner's

period of appointment was till 20.09.2017. As per

the Notary Rules, the petitioner is supposed to file

a renewal application prior to six months of the

expiry period. It is the case of the petitioner W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

that his father died on 15.12.2016 and due to

related responsibilities devolve upon the petitioner

as the elder son, he was unable to file the renewal

application in time. Thereafter, on 20.09.2017, the

petitioner filed a renewal application before the

office of the respondent along with an affidavit

sworn by the petitioner before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur stating the reason

for the delay. Ext.P3 is the application submitted

by the petitioner for renewal. Since there was no

response after Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted

Ext.P4 reminder. Thereafter, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing W.P.

(C)No.13906/2021. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment

directed the respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3

application within six weeks, after affording the

petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is also

stated in Ext.P5 judgment that the respondent is

free to hold the hearing in terms of this judgment

through electronic mode as well. The judgment was

delivered on 26.07.2021. Thereafter the petitioner

received Ext.P6 communication from the respondent W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

dated 14.07.2021, rejecting the application of the

petitioner observing that the same is not filed

within the time prescribed as per the Notary Rules,

1956. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is

filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Central Government Counsel(CGC).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The

learned counsel submitted that Ext.P3 application

was submitted on 20.09.2017, and as on that date,

there is power to the authority to relax the

conditions for submitting the application for

renewal. The learned counsel submitted that, even

though, subsequently, the proviso to Section 8B is

deleted as per notification dated 05.11.2019, the

application of the petitioner ought to have been

considered based on the relevant Rules that was in

force as on the date of Ext.P3 application. The

learned counsel also submitted that the respondent

has not given an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner as directed by this Court in Ext.P5 W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

judgment because Ext.P5 judgment is dated 26.07.2021

and Ext.P6 order was passed on 14.07.2021. The

learned counsel also submitted that Ext.P6 order is

received after Ext.P5 judgment.

4. The learned CGC submitted that as on today

there is no power to condone the delay and there is

nothing to interfere with Ext.P6 order.

5. For resolving the issue it will be better to

extract Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 before

the amendment in 2019.

"8B. Renewal of Certificate of Practice.- The Certificate of Practice issued under sub- rule(4) of rule 8 may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be submitted to the appropriate Government before three months from the date of expiry of its period of validity:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, after considering the reasons stated in the application, relax the condition of submission of application for renewal of certificate of practice before the above specific period."

6. As per notification dated 05.09.2019 in

G.S.R 821(E), in exercise of the powers conferred by W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

section 15 of the Notaries Act, 1952, the Central

Government amend the Notaries Rules, 1956. Clause 4

of the notification is extracted hereunder:

"4. In the said rules, for rule 8B, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"8B. Renewal of Certificate of Practice.- The Certificate of Practice issued under sub- rule(4) of rule 8 may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be submitted online in Form XVI to the appropriate Government before (six months) from the date of expiry of its period of validity.""

7. From a reading of the above amendment, it is

clear that the proviso mentioned in Notaries Rules

is deleted after the amendment. The three months

period is enhanced to six months in the year 2014

itself. Therefore, now there is no power to condone

the delay in submitting the application which is

prescribed in Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner submitted

the application on 20.09.2017 which leads to Ext.P6

order. Admittedly as on 2017 the proviso to Rule 8B

of the Notaries Rules, 1956 is in force. In such W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

circumstances, the respondent ought to have consider

the explanation given by the petitioner for

submitting the renewal application after the period

mentioned in Rule 8B. According to the petitioner,

he submitted an affidavit attested by a Magistrate

along with Ext.P3 explaining the delay in filing the

renewal application. There is nothing in Ext.P6 to

show that the respondent considered the same. The

respondent proceeded as if there is no power to

condone the delay. According to me, in the light of

the proviso to Rule 8B which is in force as on the

date of Ext.P3 application, the respondent is bound

to consider the delay condonation application also

while considering the renewal application.

Therefore, according to me, Ext.P6 can be set aside

and the matter can be remitted back to the

respondent for fresh consideration in accordance to

law.

Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the

following manner:

       i)         Ext.P6 order is set aside.

       ii)        The respondent is directed to consider
 W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

Ext.P3 along with the affidavit produced along with

it explaining the delay for filing the renewal

application, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

ii) Before passing final orders the

respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner.

iv) The respondent can conduct the hearing

either through physically or virtually.

v) All the contentions of the petitioner

raised in this writ petition are left open.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM W.P.(C)No.15736/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15736/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 20.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.8.2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 20.9.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.13906/2021 DATED 26.7.2021.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:    NIL



                          //TRUE COPY//



                           PA TO JUDGE