Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10011/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10011 of 2010
=========================================================
KETANKUMAR
SHIVABHAI AMIN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MM TIRMIZI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Mr. Anand L. Sharma, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
M/S S G
ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 20/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. MM Tirmizi for petitioner, learned AGP Mr. AL
Sharma for respondent State Authority and learned Advocate Mr. CL
Soni for respondent NO. 3 Raval Jagdishkumar Somnath. Today, learned
Advocate Mr. Soni appearing for respondent NO.3 has placed on record
affidavit in reply of respondent no.3. Copy thereof has been served
to learned Advocate Mr. Tirmizi for petitioner as well as learned
AGP Mr.SHarma for State Authority.
In
this petition, petitioner is praying for following reliefs in
paragraph 18(A), (B) and (C):
18(A)
YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing and setting aside the order of the competent
authority, Legal Department, Legal Department, Sachivalaya,
Gandhinagar appointing the respondent NO.4 as Notary in Taluka Sami,
District Patan pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.09.2009 and
to appoint the petitioner as Notary in Taluka Sami, District Patan
in the interest of justice.
(B) YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to order pending admission and/or final disposal
of this petition the order of the Competent Authority, Legal
Department, Legal Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar appointing
the respondent NO.4 as Notary in Taluka Sami, District Patan
pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.09.2009 be stayed in the
interest of justice.
(C)
YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to grant any other and further relief as
may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.
Thus,
petitioner has made prayer to quash and set aside order passed by
competent authority in favour of respondent no.3 while appointing
him as Notary in Taluka Sami, District Patan pursuant to
advertisement dated 17.9.2009 and to appoint petitioner as notary in
Taluka Sami, District Patan in interest of justice.
This
petition is directly filed by petitioner before this Court under
Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging appointment of
respondent No. 3 as Notary made by State Government. Such direct
petition without prior approach of concerned authority of respondent
State is not maintainable as per decision of this Court reported in
2007 (1) GLR 314. However, section 10 of The Notaries Act, 1952
provides for removal of names from Register. Section 10 of said Act
is, therefore, quoted as under:
10.
Removal of names from Register.-
The Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the
Register maintained by it under section 4 the name of the notary if
he –
(a) makes a reque4st to
that effect; or
(b) has not paid any
prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or
(c) is an undischarged
insolvent; or
(d) has been found, upon
inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional
or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, renders
him unfit to to practise as Notary; or
(e) is convicted by any
court for an offence involving moral turpitude ; or
(f) does
not get his certificate of practice renewed.
State
Government who has appointed respondent No.3 as a Notary has power
to consider such representation if it is to be made by any person
pointing out that notary who has been appointed is guilty of such
professional or other misconduct as in the opinion of Government
renders him unfit to act as a notary then State Government can
cancel appointment of such notary, therefore, for that purpose,
petitioner have approach first to State Authority.
Therefore,
let petitioner may approach respondent authority by way of detailed
representation within fifteen days from date of receipt of copy of
this order. As and when respondent NO.1 Secretary, Legal Department,
Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar receives such representation from
petitioner, it is directed to said authority to examine grievance of
petitioner and also consider it which has been made against
respondent No.3 and then to pass appropriate reasoned order after
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and
respondent No.3 Raval Jagdishkumar Somnath within three months from
date of receiving such representation from petitioner and
immediately communicate decision to petitioner as well as respondent
NO.3.
With
these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of by
this court without expressing any opinion on merits. Notice is
discharged. No order as to costs.
DS
for respondent NO.1 is permitted.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top