Antony Dominic, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P (C).28140/09. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, an advocate who was appointed as Notary. Based on a complaint made by the Passport Officer, explanation of the respondent was called for, to the allegation that he attested affidavits which did not contain the signature of the deponent. He submitted Ext.P4 reply, enclosing Ext.P5, an extract of the register maintained by him. He pleaded that it was a bonafide mistake committed, without any malicious or dishonest intention. This led to an enquiry conducted by the Joint Secretary to the Law Department, who submitted his report to the Law Secretary.
2. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued, to which, reply was also filed. Finally, by Ext.P8 order dated 19.9.2009, the respondent was barred from practising as Notary permanently. This was followed by Ext.P9 notification dated 19.9.2009, striking off his name from the Register of Notaries. It was challenging the above, W.P(C).28140/09 was filed by the respondent.
3. The writ petition was heard along with W.P(C). 28720/09, where, in respect of a similar misconduct, proceedings were completed against another advocate as in the case of the respondent and Ext.P11(a) order was issued, barring the petitioner therein from practising as Notary permanently. By the common judgment rendered on 2.12.2009, learned single Judge set aside the impugned order and directed the appellants to treat the period from 19.9.2009 till the date of the judgment as period of suspension. It was also ordered that steps should be taken to restore the name of the respondent herein and the petitioner in W.P(C).28720/09 in the Register of Notaries with effect from 3.12.2009 and should also revalidate their certificate of practice. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.
4. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. The appellants herein, who were the respondents in W.P(C).28720/09, had filed W.A.346/10 against the judgment in that case. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 2.5.2012, set aside the judgment in that writ petition and also overruled the judgment in Mohandas v. State of Kerala [2001 (3) KLT 174], which was relied on by the learned single Judge. Thus, the issue is fully covered against the respondent by the judgment in W.A.346/10.
Taking note of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.346/10, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allow this appeal. The writ petition will stand dismissed. Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
kkb.
/True copy/ PS to Judge