Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 827 (MP)

F. C. Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

2009-07-21

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2009
ORDER Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner Shri Fattuchand Jain was removed from the Notary Register under provisions of Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act, 1952'). 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Notary by order dated 8th January, 2003 (Annexure P-l) for a period of five years. The petitioner applied for renewal of certificate of Notary on 15th October, 2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner received the impugned order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby the name of the petitioner was removed from the Notary Register under the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Act, 1952, on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not fit to perform the work of Notary. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P-3) is illegal, arbitrary and with malafide intention. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. Further, the impugned order was not passed before 7th January, 2008, but thereafter when the petitioner's application for renewal of the certificate was pending consideration. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed. 4. Per contra, Shri Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that a complaint was made by Balod Tehsil Adhivakta Sangh on 11th October, 2006 (Annexure R-1) that the petitioner was not a member of the Bar Association of Balod and he had concealed this fact that the time of his appointment. An enquiry was conducted by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg. In his report dated 11th May, 2007 (Annexure R-2), it was found that the complaint made against the petitioner were true and correct on certain issues. The State Government, by letter dated 19th June, 2007, requested the District & Sessions Judge, to submit a report after examining all the issues as the enquiry report dated 11th May, 2007 did not digcuss all the points. Second report dated 18th February, 2008 (Annexure R-4) was submitted. On the basis of the report dated 18th February, a show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2008 (Annexure R-5) was issued to the petitioner. Second report dated 18th February, 2008 (Annexure R-4) was submitted. On the basis of the report dated 18th February, a show-cause notice dated 24th March, 2008 (Annexure R-5) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response to the show-cause notice on 5th April, 2008 (Annexure R-6) admitting his misconduct. After having considered the report submitted by the Additional District Judge and the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The order is legal, just and proper and has been passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. On perusal of the report dated 11th May, 2007 and 18th February, 2008, it appears that the Notary Certificate was issued in the name of Fattuchand Jain. The petitioner has used Notary seal in the name of Fattechand Jain. The petitioner used to charge Rs. 15/- to Rs. 150/- for notary work. In most of the cases, the petitioner used to charge Rs. 150/-. The petitioner has further not used a proper notary seal in the name of Fattuchand Jain. It was found proved that the petitioner was not using notary seal in proper name, i.e., in the name of Fattuchand Jain but in the name "Fattechand Jain". He has charged excessively from the consumers when the notary fee as notified, was Rs. 10/- for ordinary documents. It was found proved that the petitioner was not using notary seal in proper name, i.e., in the name of Fattuchand Jain but in the name "Fattechand Jain". He has charged excessively from the consumers when the notary fee as notified, was Rs. 10/- for ordinary documents. The petitioner, in his reply dated 5th April, 2008 has admitted his misconduct and irregularities committed by him as under: ;g fd] vukosnd dk uke vadlwfp;ks esa QRrwpan tSu fy[kk gqvk gS rFkk O;kolkf;d ifjlj esa lHkh Qrsgpan tSu ds uke ls tkurs gS bl dkj.k vkosnd }kjk Qrsgpan tSu ds uke dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS A Qrsgpan ,oa QRrwpan tSu ,d gh O;fDr gS A esjs }kjk lHkh izLrqr vkosnuks esa lhy Qrsgpan tSu dk yxk;k x;k gSA dnkfpr ekuuh; egksn; bls =qfV ekurs gS rks eSa blds fy, lg"kZ {kek izkFkhZ gwa A izR;sd lkyks esa QRrwpan tSu mQZ QRrspan tSu ds uke ls u;k lhy eqgj rS;kj dj fy;k x;k gS vkSj bl =qfV dks ekuuh; egksn; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj lq/kkj Hkh dj fy;k x;k gSA ;g fd] ek= bl NksVh lh =qfV QRrwpan tSu ds LFkku ij QRrspan tSu uke dk eksgj iz;ksx fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa gqbZ =qfV ds fy, {kek izkFkhZ gwa vkSj vk'kk gS mDr =qfV ds fy, eq>s {kek dj fy;k tkosxkA tkap ds laca/k esa dkSu lh tkap gqbZ gS] bldh tkudkjh vukosnd dks ugh gS A vukosnd us tkucw>dj fdlh izdkj ls dksbZ owfRrd dnkpj.k ugh fd;k gS A vukosnd dh vksj ls ;fn dksbZ ln~Hkkfod =qfV gqbZ gS rks mls {kek djrs gq, ;Fkk'kh?kz uksVjh ds :i O;olk; djus ds yk;lsal dk uohuhdj.k djus dh d`ik djsaA 7. Thus, it is a case wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found proved. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing after report was filed, and the petitioner has also admitted the same. 8. In Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman J & K Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 337 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: 22. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts arc admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Gurujeewan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash). The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts arc admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Gurujeewan Garewal (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash). The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (See : State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Kamataka SRTC v. S.G. Kolturappa). 9. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case where the enquiry would be an empty formality as the petitioner has admitted his fault, the relief sought for by the petitioner in his petition cannot be granted. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.