JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.
1. We have heard Shri Ravindra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a practising advocate in "tehsil Kol of district Aligarh. He was appointed Notary vide order dated 26.4.1999 -for a period of three years. The copy of the appointment letter is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The appointment was made by the Governor of the State by exercising its power under Section 3 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The petitioner applied for renewal of his further term within time but vide order dated 19.12.2002, the renewal was refused as is evident from annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order. The learned Counsel to the petitioner has contended that the order, annexure-3 is illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of the Notaries Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri S.P. Tiwari, Deputy Secretary, Law Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow, it has been alleged that the proper inquiry was made on trie complaint against the petitioner and he was found guilty of professional misconduct, therefore, his renewal was refused under Section 10 of the Act. There is provision of departmental inquiry under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. Under Section 10(d) of the Act it has been provided that when any complaint is received against the Notary, the inquiry is to be made in the prescribed manner. Under Rule 13(12) of the Notary Rules, 1956, it has been provided that the inquiry report shall be considered by the Government and the competent authority will pass the suitable orders of cancellation of certificate of practice as Notary if he is satisfied about the misconduct on the part of the Notary. The petitioner himself has filed annexure-2, the inquiry report, sent by Shri A.K. Srivastava, Assistant Inspector General of Registration Department, Aligarh dated 27.5.2002. This report shows that there were complaints against the petitioner regarding misconduct. He was called to explain the allegations made in the complaint. He submitted his explanation, which was considered by the Inquiry Officer. The finding of the Inquiry Officer is that the petitioner certified a number of documents, which were necessarily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. He charged the stamp of Rs. 10/- only, causing heavy loss of revenue to the Registration Department. In each year of his practice he committed such misconduct. A number of instances have been quoted in the report. The report was accepted by the Law Department of the Government and refused to allow the petitioner to act further as Notary.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Sushil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar AIR 1975 Patna 121 and Kashl Prasad Saksena v. State of U.P. AIR 1967 Alld 173 and has contended that the renewal application could not be rejected, if submitted before the expiry of the term and no order was communicated even after expiry of the term. In the case of Kashi Prasad Saksena it has been observed that the post of Notary is not a Civil Post under the State and protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is not available to him. The Government has authority to remove the Notary under Section 10 of the Act. However, on the charge of professional misconduct the Government has to satisfy itself that such misconduct is so gross as to render Notary unfit for practice and the satisfaction of the Government is sufficient. The proper inquiry should also be made. In the present case before us, as we have discussed earlier, there were complaints against the petitioner and the proper inquiry was made by the authority concerned after getting his explanation. The records were perused and it was found that the petitioner certified those papers which were necessarily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and caused heavy loss to the State Exchequer. A number of instances have been quoted in the inquiry report. This misconduct was sufficient to hold that the petitioner was unfit for practising as Notary. The purpose of appointing the Notary is not to cause the loss of the revenue to the Government.
4. In our opinion, the refusal of renewal of the further term of the petitioner was in accordance with law and no interference is required in the matter by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.