K.Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 12373 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 17859 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

            K.ABDUL JABBAR
            AGED 64 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O. K. MOHAMMED (LATE)
            JASMINE MAHAL, KOVILAKAM ROAD, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT PIN 676 121

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)
            SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI



RESPONDENT/S:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA LAW
            DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001

    2       THE LAW SECRETARY
            LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

            BY ADVS.
            SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.17859/2016                  -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a practising Lawyer. He was appointed as a Notary

Public under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 ('the Act, 1952) and the

Rules framed thereunder, in the year 1997. This appointment was renewed

from time to time and was valid up to 20-11-2015. Rule 8B of the Notaries

Rules 1956 required the petitioner to apply for renewal of the certificate of

practice 6 months before the date of expiry of the period of validity and going

by the said provision the petitioner ought to have applied for renewal of the

certificate of practice on or before 20-05-2015. However the petitioner

submitted an application for renewal (Ext.P2) only on 19-08-2015. Though

the petitioner prayed for condondation of delay, the Government by Ext.P4

order did not find any ground to condone the delay and rejected the

application filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only

reason in Ext.P4 order is that the petitioner being a Notary Public ought to

have been aware of the requirement to apply 6 months prior to the date of

expiry of the certificate of practice for its renewal and therefore the

Government finds no reason to condone the delay in filing the application for

renewal of the certificate of practice. It is submitted that at the relevant time

the provisions of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules 1956 permitted the

Government to consider an application filed beyond time.

3. Learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed

by the 1st respondent and contends that there is absolutely no illegality in

Ext.P4 order warranting interference at the hands of this court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner was bound

to file an application 6 months prior to the expiry of the current certificate of

practice and having not done so, his application for renewal could not have

been considered by the Government. It is submitted that as is evident from

Ext.P4 order, the only reason stated by the petitioner at the time of hearing

before the Government was that he was not aware that an application for

renewal had to be filed 6 months prior to the date of expiry of the current

certificate of practice. The learned Government Pleader also points out that

Rule 8B has been amended with effect from 05-11-2019 and presently there is

no provision for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader and having perused Ext.P4 order, I am of the

view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the

Government. The only reason stated in Ext.P4 for refusing the consideration

of application filed by the petitioner is that as a Notary Public the petitioner

ought to have been aware that the application should have been filed at least 6

months prior to the expiry of the current certificate of practice. This in my

view cannot be a justification for refusing the application for condoning the

delay, if there are other genuine reasons for condonation of delay. Therefore

Ext.P4 order will stand quashed. The application filed by the petitioner for

renewal of his certificate of practice issued under the Notaries Act and the

Rules framed thereunder will stand restored to file. The 2 nd respondent shall

pass fresh orders on the application filed by the petitioner after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative.

Since the application filed by the petitioner was in the year 2015, the

application of the petitioner shall be considered with reference to the

provisions of Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 as stood at the relevant

time. The 2nd respondent shall endeavour to pass orders on Ext.P2 as directed

above within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy

of this judgment. Writ petition ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17859/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE VIDE REGISTRATION NO 7/97/MPM DATED 04-09-2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02-05-2015 FOR RENEWAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY DATED 19-08-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-01-2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO 19521/H3/2015/LAW DATED 18-01-2016