IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1413 of 2010 (M/S) Pradeep Raj Bharti ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …….Respondents Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 10th August, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure 5 to the petition). The petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal of the notary licence of the petitioner as has been provided under the Notary Rules, 1956. According to the petitioner, on 03.12.2004 he was appointed as Notary for a period of five years and the licence of notary was to expire on 02.12.2009. On 15.09.2009, the petitioner applied for renewal of the licence for a further period of five years along with necessary documents through the District Judge Haridwar. However, the respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner that there was delay of 14 days in making the application for renewal and the delay was not 2 explained, hence the petitioner was asked to explain the delay. The petitioner by his letter dated 15.10.2009 submitted to the respondent no. 1 that the petitioner had no knowledge of the amendment in Rule 8(b) of the Notary Rules that application for renewal was to be sought three months prior to the date of expiry of the licence and the delay was not deliberate on his part. He requested to relax the condition and to renew the notary licence of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government did not find favour with the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal of licence and ultimately rejected the prayer by letter dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure-5 to the petition) and returned the requisite fee and stamp paper sent by the petitioner. It is true that the application for renewal of the licence was moved by the petitioner on 15.09.2009, while the date of expiry of licence was 03.12.2009. Undisputedly the application for renewal of licence was moved with delay of 14 days. However, from a perusal of the application dated 15.10.2009 sent by the petitioner to the respondent no.1, the petitioner has categorically stated that delay in making the application for renewal is not deliberate and the petitioner was not aware of the amendment made in Rule 8(b) of the Notary Rules. The petitioner has specifically stated that he is doing the work of Notary as per Rules and has been maintaining the relevant records. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the delay caused in moving the application for renewal of licence by the petitioner is inordinate or intentional. In the above facts and circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things as also in the interest of justice that delay in moving the application be condoned. Accordingly, delay in moving the renewal application by the petitioner is condoned. The impugned order dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure-5 to the petition) are set aside. The authority concerned is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of notary certificate expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Interim relief application no.6629 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 10.08.2010