Abdul Rawoof vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29-8-2013 impugned at Annexure-K to the Petition. The petitioner is an Advocate who was appointed as Notary by the State Government in the year 1998. The licence was renewed during the year 2011 which remained valid up to the year 2016. At that point, in view of certain allegations against the petitioner based on the letter dated 5-12-2011 addressed by the 2nd respondent, action was initiated. By the order impugned dated 29-8-2013 the 1st respondent has cancelled the licence/authorization granted in favour of the petitioner to act as a Notary. Claiming to be aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

The respondents have filed their objections statement. Reference is made to the nature of the proceedings that has been held and the report submitted by the District & Sessions Judge. The reference is also made to Section 8(a) to contend that the petitioner as a Notary was required to verify and authenticate the document, but in the instant case has failed to do so. In that light, the power available under Rule 13 has been referred and the action is sought to be justified.

In the light of the above, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. The order available at Annexure-K dated 29-8-2013 would no doubt refer to the report dated 25-3-2013 submitted by the District & Sessions Judge. The said report is available at Annexure-J to the petition. A perusal of the same would indicate that the District & Sessions Judge after referring to the details of the matter and on taking note of the allegation was of the opinion that though such entry had not been made in the Register, the competent authority may take a view to warn the petitioner so as not to repeat the same in future. In that light, a perusal of the order made would disclose that except for referring to the report of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, the consideration or the recommendation has not been taken note of. Though ultimately the 1st respondent is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter, the report submitted would be relevant to the extent of noticing the gravity of misdemeanor and the appropriate action in that regard which is required to be taken. It is not that in, all circumstances licence/authorization should be terminated. A lesser punishment or warning to that effect should also be considered by the competent authority in appropriate case and reason for the extreme action also needs to be spelt out. However no consideration in this regard has been made by the 1st respondent despite the report of the Principal District & Sessions Judge. Hence, in that light, the order dated 29-8-2013 in its present form would not be sustainable.

Accordingly, the order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to keep in mind the report of the Principal District & Sessions Judge and also take into consideration all aspects of the matter and relevant Rule and thereafter consider as to whether the misdemeanor alleged against the petitioner warrants extreme punishment or whether it could be dealt with in any other manner. The said consideration shall be made by the 1st respondent in an expeditious manner but not later than two months from the date on which the certified copy of this order is furnished to the 1st respondent. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed off.