CW/14990/2009 of KAILASH CHANDRA NAMDHARANI Vs STATE OF RAJ and ANR on 18 December 2009

: O R D E R :

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15119/2009(Smt. Asha Bhansali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Smt. Asha Bhansali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)2.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15800/2009(Usha Kiran Lohiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Usha Kiran Lohiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15773/2009(Ram Singh Mandloi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Ram Singh Mandloi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15155/2009(Ravinder Nath David Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Ravinder Nath David Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15578/2009(Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15611/2009(Mulkhraj Suneja Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Mulkhraj Suneja Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15182/2009(Gopal Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Gopal Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15183/2009(Ram Swaroop Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Ram Swaroop Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15396/2009(Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15486/2009(Bantesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Bantesh Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

11. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15499/2009(Jagdish Prasad Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Jagdish Prasad Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

12. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15508/2009(Bhebha Ram Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Bhebha Ram Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

13. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16113/2009(Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

14. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15671/2009(Bhanwari Lal Khulari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Bhanwari Lal Khulari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

15. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15514/2009(Poonam Chand Ahari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Poonam Chand Ahari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

16. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15559/2009(Brij Mohan Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Brij Mohan Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan)

17. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15565/2009(Jaisingh Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Jaisingh Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

18. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15580/2009(Jagmohan Lal Gurjar Vs. The Secretary to Govt. & Anr.)(Jagmohan Lal Gurjar Vs. The Secretary to Govt. & Anr.)

19. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15625/2009(Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. The Secretary to the Govt. & Anr.)(Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. The Secretary to the Govt. & Anr.)

20. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15192/2009(R.N. Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(R.N. Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

21. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15193/2009(Bhanwar Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Bhanwar Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

22. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15217/2009(Prakash Chandra Gautam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Prakash Chandra Gautam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

23. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15635/2009(Zaffar Mohammad Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Zaffar Mohammad Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

24. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15706/2009(Devendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Devendra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

25. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15710/2009(Shri Priyavrit Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Shri Priyavrit Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

26. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15737/2009(Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan)

27. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15767/2009(Mohammad Yousuf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Mohammad Yousuf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

28. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15849/2009(Suresh Mangal Vs. The Secretary to the Govt. & Anr.)(Suresh Mangal Vs. The Secretary to the Govt. & Anr.)

29. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16068/2009(Hardevaram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Hardevaram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

30. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15175/2009(Syed Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Syed Tayyab Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

31. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16112/2009(Ram Gopal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Ram Gopal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

32. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16114/2009(Ram Swaroop Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Ram Swaroop Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

33. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15870/2009(Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

34. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15859/2009(Syed Aziz Naqvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Syed Aziz Naqvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

35. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15821/2009(Narendra Singh Hada Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Narendra Singh Hada Vs. State of Rajasthan)

36. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15820/2009(Nemi Chand Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Nemi Chand Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan)

37. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15075/2009(Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan)

38. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14910/2009(Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

39. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14863/2009(Jagdeesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Jagdeesh Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

40. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14861/2009(Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Sita Ram Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

41. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14862/2009(Ramesh Cnandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Ramesh Cnandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

42. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15019/2009(Bashir Mohd. Multani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Bashir Mohd. Multani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

3

43. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15031/2009(Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan)

44. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14981/2009(Jagdish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Jagdish Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

45. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14980/2009(Hemant Kumar Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Hemant Kumar Yogi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

46. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14990/2009(Kailash Chandra Namdharani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Kailash Chandra Namdharani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

47. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14968/2009(Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

48. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14985/2009(Dinesh Kumar Avasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Dinesh Kumar Avasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

49. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14984/2009(Girraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Girraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

50. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15177/2009(Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

51. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15315/2009(Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

52. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15316/2009(Virendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Virendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

53. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15314/2009(Manoj Kumar Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Manoj Kumar Arya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

54. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14660/2009(Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan)

55. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14201/2009(Bal Mukund Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)(Bal Mukund Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

56. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14946/2009(Hazari Lal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Hazari Lal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

57. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14931/2009(Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan)

58. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14932/2009(Krishan Gopal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Krishan Gopal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan)59.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14909/2009(Umesh Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan)(Umesh Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan)

60. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14912/2009(Mahaveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Mahaveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

61. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14911/2009(Sitaram Nosadar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Sitaram Nosadar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

62. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14913/2009(Bal Govind Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)(Bal Govind Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

DATE OF ORDER : December 18th, 2009

Reportable :

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Mr. Munish Kumar Sharma, Mr. S.K.Gupta, Mr. Sudarshan Laddha, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya,Mr. Pushpendra Pal Singh, Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Mr.Gajendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Sharad Purohit, Mr. RaunakSinghvi, Mr. Narendra Singh Dhaka, Mr. R.K. Mathur, Mr.Ajay Kumar Bajpai, Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, Mr. OmveerSingh Saini, Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Mr. SusheelSharma, Mr. Arvind Kumar Pareek, Mr. Sanjay KumarSharma and Mr. M.K. Jain, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Addl. Advocate General.

Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Government Counsel.

BY THE COURT:

In all the above writ petitions, common question oflaw on the basis of similar facts is involved, therefore, allthese writ petitions are being decided by this commonorder while taking into consideration facts in S.B. Civil WritPetition No.15119/2009, Smt. Asha Bhansali Vs. State ofRajasthan & Others.

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed asNotary under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952(hereinafter, to be called “the Act of 1952”) and NotariesRules, 1956 (hereinafter, to be called “the Rules of 1956”).The petitioner was authorized to practise as Notary inJaipur city for a period of five years. Said order/certificateof authorization was issued on 28.07.2003. As per thepetitioner, she was authorized to practise throughout Jaipur city and as per the provisions for renewal, beforethe expiry of the time, an application was moved by thepetitioner on 07.07.2008 for renewal of the term as Notaryand she has deposited the requisite fee of Rs.500/-.

Arguments

After submitting the application for renewal, theDeputy Secretary, Law, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipursent letter to the District Judge, Jaipur requiring certaininformation about petitioner with regard to renewal of herlicence. The District Judge, Jaipur City sentcommunication on 13.08.2008 to the petitioner to furnishrelevant record and register. After receiving the saidcommunication, the petitioner produced all relevant recordbut, all of a sudden, the petitioner received communicationdated 13.11.2009, Annex.-6, in which, the petitioner wasintimated about amendments made from time to time inthe Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956 and, further, thepetitioner was directed to stop the work of Notary withimmediate effect since the State Government has decidednot to renew the authorization certificate of the petitioneras Notary. The petitioner has placed on record the saidcommunication dated 13.11.2009.

In the communication dated 13.11.2009, it is statedthat a decision has been taken by the Government as perrelevant amendment in the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956

not to renew the Notary authorization certificate andpetitioner has been restrained from working as Notary withimmediate effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while attackingupon the order impugned dated 13.11.2009 submits thatthere is complete procedure laid down in the Act of 1952and Rules of 1956 to renew the licence after completion ofthe relevant formalities by the existing Notary. Theremoval can be made from the register by the Governmentas per Section 10 of the Act of 1952 and as per Section 5(2) of the Act, the Government appointing the Notary,may, on receipt of application and prescribed fee, is underobligation to renew the certificate of any Notary for aperiod of five years at a time.

Further, there is power left with the Central Government under Section 15 to frame rules for renewal ofcertificate of practice as Notary; and, in exercise of powerconferred under Section 15, rules were framed known asNotaries Rules, 1956, according to which, procedure is laiddown for entertaining application for appointment ofNotary under Rule 8. Under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1956,there is procedure for depositing fee for renewal ofcertificate of practice as Notary.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has deposited Rs.500/- and filed applicationwithin time for renewal, therefore, State Government wasunder obligation to renew the certificate of notary in favourof the petitioner. Of course, name of any candidate canbe removed at any stage by the Government underSection 10 from the register upon certain grounds whichare not in existence in this case. The State Governmenthas arbitrarily rejected the application filed by thepetitioner for renewal, that too, without providing anyopportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, theorder impugned suffered from arbitrariness and illegality.As such, it is prayed that order impugned dated13.11.2009 may be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited myattention towards judgments reported in AIR 1991 Kerala225 and 1996 (2) WLC 158. It is submitted by learnedcounsel for the petitioner that in view of the abovejudgments, order impugned deserves to be quashed andpetitioner is entitled to the relief for quashing orderimpugned, Annex.-6 dated 13.11.2009.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents whileinviting attention of this Court towards the reply submitsthat although the petitioner was given certificate andappointed as Notary under the provisions of the Act and Rules; but, after expiry of the term, as per provisions ofthe Act, the petitioner was required to file application forrenewal. It is contended that application for renewal ofauthorization certificate was filed but, in view of theamendment made in the Notary Act, 1952 and the rulesmade thereunder, a decision was taken by the StateGovernment not to renew the authorization certificate,therefore, the order impugned has been passed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits thatamendment was made vide notification dated 17.12.1999in Section 5, sub-section (2) and substituted by newprovision which reads as under :

“5. Entry of names in the Register and

issue or renewal of certificates ofpractice.-

(1) ..... ..... ..... .....

(2) The Government appointing the notary, may, on receipt of an application and theprescribed fee, renew the certificate ofpractice of any notary for a period of fiveyears at a time.”

After providing above amendment, in place of word “shall”,the word “may” was substituted, in which, it was earliermandatory for the Government to renew the certificate ofpractice; but, after amendment, the provision has been made directory and discretionary. Now, it is notobligatory to grant renewal of certificate of practice. Thusno right vests in the petitioner to get her certificate ofpractice renewed. Learned counsel for the respondentssubmits that mere depositing the renewal fee and filingapplication for renewal of certificate of practice as notarydoes not create any right that petitioner is entitled forrenewal of the certificate of practice.

In para 12 of the reply, it is stated by the respondentState that the Central Government while exercising powerconferred under Section 15 of the Act of 1952 amendedthe Notaries Rules, 1956 and, vide notification dated14.02.2009, amendments were made in Rules 4, 6, 7 andnew Rule 7A was incorporated and Rule 8 has beenamended. The Rules of 1956 were further amended videnotification dated 24.09.2009 and certain amendmentswere made in Rule 4 and Rule 7A of the Rules. Rule 8B iswith regard to renewal of certificate of practice and thesame is reproduced in the reply at page 11, which runs asunder :

“8B. Renewal of Certificate of Practice.-The certificate of practice issued under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 may be renewed for a furtherperiod of five years on payment of prescribedfee. An application for renewal of Certificateof Practice shall be submitted to theappropriate Government before three months

from the date of expiry of its period of validity:ProvidedthattheappropriateGovernment may, after considering thereasons stated in the application, relax thecondition of submission of application forrenewal of certificate of practice before theabove specified period.”

While inviting attention of this Court towards Section5(2) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 8B of the Rules of 1956, itis submitted by learned counsel for the State that in bothprovisions discretionary powers have been given to theState Government either to renew the certificate ofpractice or to reject the application for renewal ofcertificate for practice as notary. There is no absoluteright of the petitioner for renewal of the certificate forpractice. Under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1952, earlierword “shall” was incorporated but, after amendment, it issubstituted by word “may”, therefore, the petitioner cannotclaim renewal as a matter of right to practice as Notary.The action of the State Government cannot be questionedbecause a conscious decision has been taken by the StateGovernment not to renew the certificates of all thepracticing Notaries whose period has expired and, now,after amendment, the Notaries shall be appointed asprovided under the amended rules. The question of evilor civil consequences does not arise in the case becausethe Government has now decided to appoint Notaries in accordance with the amended provisions whereunder newprocedure has been laid down for providing equalopportunity to get appointment as Notary to all theAdvocates eligible for appointment as per the amendedrules, which is in conformity with the requirement of Article14 of the Constitution. The petitioner cannot claimrenewal as a matter of right. As such, there is no force inthis writ petition. The decision taken by the Governmentis in consonance with the provisions of law.

After hearing both the parties and considering theentire record of the case, my adjudication in the matter isas follows :

Admittedly, the petitioners in all these writ petitionsare possessing the certificate of Notary issued by the Law& Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government ofRajasthan, Jaipur and all the petitioners filed applicationfor renewal and deposited the fee as provided under Rule 9of the Rules of 1956; meaning thereby, applications havebeen filed by the existing Notaries for renewal which havebeen rejected by verbatim decision in all these cases not torenew the licence.

For the purpose of deciding these case, it isworthwhile to observe that according to Notaries Act,1952, there is power to appoint Notary left with the Government and as per Section 5, entries of the names inthe register is required to be made and renewal is alsoprovided under the said Section. Under Section 5(2), theGovernment appointing the notary, may, on receipt ofapplication and prescribed fee, renew the certificate ofpractice of any Notary for a period of 5 years at a time.

Under Section 10 of the Act of 1952, removal of thenames from register is provided. Section 10 of the Act of1952 reads as follows :

“10.Removal of names from Register.-TheGovernment appointing any notary may, byorder, remove from the Register maintainedby it under section 4 the name of the notary if he - (a)makes a request to that effect; or (b)has not paid any prescribed fee requiredto be paid by him; or to be paid by him; or

(c) is an undischarged insolvent; or

(d) has been found, upon inquiry in theprescribed manner, to be guilty of suchprofessional or other misconduct as, inthe opinion of the Government, rendershim unfit to practise as a notary; orprescribed manner, to be guilty of suchprofessional or other misconduct as, inthe opinion of the Government, rendershim unfit to practise as a notary; or (e)is convicted by any court for an offenceinvolving moral turpitude; orinvolving moral turpitude; or (f)does not get his certificate of practicerenewed.”renewed.”

Admittedly, none of the reasons is in existence for denial of renewal in the impugned order passed by the Government.

It is true that amendment was made by the CentralGovernment vide notification dated 24.12.2009, whereby,certain amendment and insertions were made, accordingto which, amendment was made in Rule 8 of the Rules of1956, which reads as under :

“In rule 8 of the said rules, in sub-rule (1), forthe words, “On receipt of the report of theCompetent Authority the appropriateGovernment shall consider the report andshall..........”, the words, “On receipt of therecommendations of the interview board theappropriate Government shall consider therecommendation and shall.......”the words, “On receipt of the report of theCompetent Authority the appropriateGovernment shall consider the report andshall..........”, the words, “On receipt of therecommendations of the interview board theappropriate Government shall consider therecommendation and shall.......”

meaning thereby, earlier there was provision that at thetime of appointment on receipt of the report of thecompetent authority, the appropriate Government was toconsider the report; but, now, after amendment, it isprovided that on receipt of recommendation of theinterview board, the appropriate Government is required toconsider the recommendation of the interview board. Asper the reply of the State Government, the decision hasbeen taken on the basis of the above amendment and ithas been decided not to renew any licence and to appointa committee for providing fresh appointment of notariesvide order dated 17.09.2009 which is placed on record as Annex.-R/2 and applications have been invited videAnnex.R/3 dated 11.11.2009.

In my opinion, the so called amendment has beenmade in Rule 8(1) of the Rules, under which, appointmentof Notary is provided and the above amendment is for thefresh appointment of Notary and not for renewal. For therenewal, in the reply of the State Government, Section 5(2) of the Act of 1952 and Rule 8B of the Rules of 1956have been incorporated which is already reproduced in thisjudgment also; meaning thereby, the applicability of theamendment so made in Rule 8(1) by the CentralGovernment dated 24.02.2009 does not arise. Obviously,upon perusal of the notification, it is revealed that saidamendment has been made for the purpose of freshappointment and not for the purpose of renewal of thecertificate of practice. Therefore, although discretion isleft with the Government under Section 5(2) and underRule 8B of the Rules of 1956, the State Governmentcannot remove or deny renewal if the case of the Notarydoes not fall under Section 10 of the Act of 1952.

Upon perusal of the impugned order dated13.11.2009, it is abundantly clear that it has not beenpassed on the ground that petitioner has acquireddisqualification for removal of his name from the register,

but, order impugned has been passed on the basis of socalled decision taken by the Government. In my opinion,the decision of the Government is not in consonance withthe provisions of the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956because discretion given by using the word “may” isrequired to be exercised judiciously and as per provisionsof the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956.

Here, in this case, though provisions of renewal arein existence and not deleted in the Act of 1952 and Rulesof 1956, then, how the renewal application can be rejectedby the Government unless the case of the petitioner fallsunder the disqualification clause under Section 10 of theAct of 1952. In this view of the matter, the decision takenby the Government can be made applicable for freshappointment and not for the purpose of renewal of thecertificate of practice, therefore, no application can berejected on the ground of such decision which is contraryto the Act of 1952 and Rules of 1956.

As a result of the foregoing discussion, all these writpetitions are allowed. Orders impugned in all the writpetitions issued by the Government declining to renew thecertificate of practice as Notary are hereby quashed andset aside. The State Government is directed to decide theapplications for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary afresh and, at the time of deciding the applications, theState Government can take into consideration Section 10of the Act of 1952, wherein, reasons for removal of thename from the register is provided. In that event also, atleast, reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted tothe applicant who has filed application for renewal.

There shall, however, be no order as to cost (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.

Ojha, a.