Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Pala Ramasmy, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a Notary and also a practising Advocate at Madurai District Court and he was made as a Notary by the respondents by order dated 10.02.1997 and it was periodically renewed and the last renewal was from 10.02.2003 and the renewal of Certificate of Practice expired on 09.02.2008. Therefore, as per the Rule 8-B of the Notaries Act 1956, three months prior to the expiry the Certificate of Practice may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was suffering from jaundice during the relevant period and taking country medicine initially and thereafter, treated with allopathy medicine and therefore, he was not able to apply for renewal 3 months prior to the expiry date. As the application was not made within three months, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 18.03.2008 calling for explanation from the petitioner for his belated application after a delay of 157 days. The petitioner submitted his explanation along with the certificate from the qualified doctor on 13.09.2008 and requested the first respondent to condone the delay and issue a new Notary Certificate. 4. The first respondent by the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.91, Law (Administration) Department dated 18.03.2009 removed the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries maintained by the Government under Section 4 of the Act on the ground that in the doctor certificate produced by him, it was stated that he was suffering from Jaundice from 31.11.2007 to 10.04.2008 whereas he ought to have applied for renewal on or before 09.11.2008 and therefore, the certificate will not be accepted for condoning the delay. 5. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted the judgment of this Court reported in 1997(II) C.T.C 443 in the case of S.Ramanarayanan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Madras 600 009 and another, wherein it has been held that where a Notary's conduct indicates abandonment of his right of renewal, that Government would be justified in refusing to renew the certificate. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Madras 600 009 and another, wherein it has been held that where a Notary's conduct indicates abandonment of his right of renewal, that Government would be justified in refusing to renew the certificate. Relying upon that judgment, he would contend that the petitioner has no intention of abandonment of practice of Notary and therefore, the delay can be considered. 6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, and he submitted that the certificate does not disclose that he was suffering from Jaundice from earlier to 31.11.2007 and he ought to have applied on or before 09.01.2009 and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the respondents. 7. No doubt, in the Certificate, it has been stated that the petitioner is taking treatment from 31.11.2007 to 10.04.2008. The petitioner has stated in his explanation dated 13.09.2008 that due to his illness, he was not able to renew his licence in time and the delay in not applying of the renewal was not malafide or not willful. 8. In the affidavit filed along with the writ petition also, he has stated that he was suffering from jaundice during the relevant period and was taking country medicine initially and thereafter with allopathy medicine. 9. According to the petitioner he was suffering from Jaundice and initially took country medicine from his native doctor and subsequently, took medicine from allopathy doctor and therefore, the doctor has issued certificate from the date he has given treatment to the petitioner. In his explanation also, the petitioner has stated that he was suffering from ailment during the relevant period and that was the reason for not applying for renewal in time. 10. As per the Rule 8(B) of the Notaries Rules 1956, the authority has got power to relax the condition of submission of application for renewal certificate of practice before the above said period and it has been held by our Honourable Supreme Court that in the matter of delay in filing the application, the authorities should not take a pedantic approach and they must be liberal in condoning the delay or relax the Rule. 11. 11. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner that there is no adverse entry against him and he was taking treatment for more than 4 months, the authority ought to have considered the application liberally and relaxed the condition of submission of application for renewal of certificate of practice. 12. I am satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and therefore, in my opinion, the respondent is not correct in rejecting the request of the petitioner for the delay in making the application and the order of removal in the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries is illegal. 13. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2009 and the respondents are directed to peruse the application and issue renewal certificate in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.