Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8270/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8270 of 2005
=========================================================
HARSHAD
VRAJLAL DAVE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUAJRAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TV SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 02/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner herein has prayed to direct the respondent to return the
original certificate of practice no. 52/1990 to the petitioner after
renewing for a period of three years i.e. upto 15.02.2008.
2. The
petitioner was appointed as Notary by Register No. 62/90. The
certificate of practicing of the petitioner was renewed upto
14.02.2002. Thereafter on 03.08.2002, the petitioner applied for
renewal with the requisite fee. The renewal certificate was not
returned to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore sent a request
letter and the application for renewal was again made on 31.01.2005.
However, the original certificate of Notary is not returned to the
petitioner.
3. Mr.
Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the period of certificate was over on 14.02.2002. The
petitioner was under the belief that the certificate of practice is
valid upto 14.02.2003 but when it came to the notice of the
petitioner on 03.08.2002 he immediately applied for renewal of
certificate of practice along with necessary renewal fee.
3.1 He
has submitted that the said action of the respondent is in breach of
the section 5(2) of the Notary Act when the petitioner is entitled to
have a certificate of practice renewed for the period of three years
on each occasion.
4. Mr.
J.K. Shah, learned AGP has supported the action of the respondent
authority and submitted that there was a delay of six months in
renewing the certificate and therefore this court may not interfere
in the present matter. He has also relied upon a decision of this
court passed in Special Civil Application No. 1713 of 2003 which has
been rejected on similar grounds.
5. This
court has heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the papers on record more particularly the affidavit in reply
filed by the respondent authorities wherein it is mentioned that
though the time limit of the certificate to practice as notary had
expired on 14.02.2002 the petitioner did not apply for renewal upto
16.09.2002. There was a delay of six months and no genuine reasons
have been given by the present petitioners for delay and hence this
certificate is not renewed by the authority under section 10(F) of
the Notary Act, 1952. Even on earlier occasion the petitioner had
remained careless in getting his certificate renewed within the time
limit. The petitioner even without getting his certificate of
practice as notary renewed has continued unauthorisedly to practice
as notary which is an offence under the Notary Act.
5.1 Even
otherwise, eight years have passed after the expiry of the
certificate. This court in Special Civil Application No. 1713 of
2003 has rejected the petition filed on similar grounds and the same
shall be applicable on the facts of the present case. This court is
in complete agreement with the decision of the respondent authority
and do not see any reason for causing interference.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top