JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of the First Respondent in Ms.No.182/Admn/2009, Law Department, dated 28.7.2009 and to direct the Respondents to renew the certificate of practice of the Petitioner issued on 3.5.1998. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Notary for three years from 3.5.1998 under the Notaries Act, 1952. The Petitioner’s notary certificate was renewed for a further period of three years till 2.5.1994. After expiry of the said period, Petitioner could not make renewal application immediately and subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner asking as to why his name should not be removed from the register of Notaries. Petitioner sent a reply seeking condonation of delay of 256 days in payment of renewal fee, but the Respondent without accepting the same, passed orders removing the name of the Petitioner from the register of notary. Subsequently Petitioner made a representation to the Government seeking renewal of his certificate, however on 6.8.1998 a reply was sent to the Petitioner cancelling his notary certificate. Again Petitioner made representation on 7.3.2008 and as the same was not considered, Petitioner filed W.P.No.4566 of 2009 before this Court. On 6.4.2009 this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Respondents to consider the same after giving notice to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, Petitioner was called upon to give explanation and on 24.6.2009 Petitioner sent detailed explanation. The grievance of the Petitioner is that without properly appreciating the said explanation dated 24.6.2009, Respondents have rejected the request of the Petitioner by order dated 28.7.2009, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits that the matter in issue is covered by a judgment of this Court, reported in S. Ramanarayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Madras and another, 1997 (2) CTC 443 . 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents submits that the matter in issue is covered by a judgment of this Court, reported in S. Ramanarayanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Law Department, Madras and another, 1997 (2) CTC 443 . In the said judgment, the learned Judge while considering the delay in making the application for renewal of Certificate of practice, which had expired observed in paragraph 4 as follows: “Under the scheme of “the Act” once a legal practitioner is selected and appointed as Notary, and such person has not ceased to be a legal practitioner, he is entitled to continue as a Notary as long as he wants, subject to his applying for with the prescribed fee for renewal of his certificate of practice at the end of each of the three years period. The learned Judge has also observed that no period of limitation is set out in the Act or the Rules for seeking renewal and in the absence of any such specification, it must be held that the Notary has a right to seek renewal within a reasonable time after the expiry of the certificate of practice.” 4. The said judgment is also approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1710 of 2002, dated 30.7.2002 and set aside the similar rejection order with a direction to renew the certificate of practice to the Appellant therein enabling her to continue as a Notary. The Division Bench in paragraph 14, held as follows: “1.. … in view of our finding that in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed, the application for renewal made even after the expiry of the period for which the certificate of practice was issue cannot be rejected, the application made by the Appellant on 1.8.1993 received by the Respondent on 1.8.1993 ought to have been considered. By the impugned order, the Respondents has not only refused to entertain the application on the ground that it was not filed within a period of three years but also removed the name of the appellant from the register of notaries maintained under Section 4 of “the Act”. By the impugned order, the Respondents has not only refused to entertain the application on the ground that it was not filed within a period of three years but also removed the name of the appellant from the register of notaries maintained under Section 4 of “the Act”. The reason given by the Respondent to remove the name of the appellant from the register that the Appellant had not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by her, in our considered view, is only a misapplication of the provision. Section 10(b) of “the Act” contemplates the removal of names from the register when a notary who intends to practice is entitled to have his/her name entered in the register maintained by the Government under Section 4 on payment of prescribed fee. The nonpayment of prescribed fee relates to the failure of the notary to make necessary payment for the purpose of Section 5(1)(a) of “the Act”. Applying the provision of Section 10(b) to a case of renewal under Section 5(2) of the “the Act” is totally unsustainable as there is no provision for removal of a notary form the register for non-filing of application for renewal of certificate of practice. The scheme of “the Act” is very clear in as much as notaries are appointed by the Central and State Governments and only such of those notaries appointed are entitled to get their names registered in the register maintained by the respective Governments and also are entitled to get a certificate of practice. Equally, only a notary who name has been entered in the register maintained by the State Government is entitled to get the certificate of practice. Denial of the right of renewal on the given reason cannot be sustained. For the above reason, we find that the impugned order passed under Section 10(b) of “the Act” is totally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.” 5. Following the said judgments, the impugned order dated 28.7.2009 is set aside. The Petitioner is directed to re-submit the application with fresh renewal fee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Respondent is directed to pass renewal order, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.