Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv. v. UNION OF INDIA .....

1. The petitioner was on 20th August, 1997 appointed as a Notary, for a period of three years with effect from 12th August, 1997. On an application for renewal, his certificate for practice was renewal for a period of five years with effect from 12th August, 2000 and which period expired on 11th August, 2005.

2. During the said time in the year 2003 there was a complaint against the petitioner of which reply was sent by the petitioner but no further action appears to have been taken and the petitioner continued to practice as a Notary as aforesaid till 11th August, 2005.

3. The petitioner again applied for renewal but which was refused vide letter dated 17th February, 2006. The petitioner claims to have continued to W.P.(C) 6042/2011 2011:DHC:4244 represent/apply but the bank draft submitted by him along with the application was returned on 16th February, 2009. The petitioner claims to have again yet applied in the year 2010 and has filed this petition seeking direction for renewal of his certificate of practice as a Notary.

4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the right of the petitioner to renewal of his license. Though the counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show any, the counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has invited attention to Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and to Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 to contend that the discretion to renew the license is of the Government as the Appointing Authority and there is no right of a person appointed as a Notary to renewal term after term.

5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no inquiry under Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 was conducted pursuant to the complaint against the petitioner and without conducting such an inquiry, the respondent could not have denied renewal to the petitioner.

6. In this regard it may be noticed that the respondent in its letter dated 17th February, 2006 refusing renewal to the petitioner has not stated any reason and has not cited the complaint aforesaid as a reason for refusal. The respondent having not chosen to initiate any inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 13 of the Rules and having not used the said complaint as a reason for refusing renewal to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot urge that he has not been given an opportunity to defend himself.

7. Else, the discretion to appoint or not to appoint or renew or not to renew has to be of the Appointing Authority and if the contention of the petitioner were to be accepted then all those who fulfill the qualifications for appointment would be entitled to seek a mandamus for appointment and which cannot be permitted.

8. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. CM No.12192/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 19, 2011/bs..