IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 720 of 2010 Sunil Kumar Goyal s/o Darshan Lal Goyal, R/O321 Old Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary/Vidhi Paramarshi, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Additional Secretary, Law/Additional Vidhi Paramarshi, State of Uttarakhand. … Respondents. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date June 16, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, 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 to quash the order dated 10- 2-2010 (Annexure-5 to the petition) passed by the respondent no.2. Further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence as per Notary Rules 1956 by condoning the delay has been made. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Notary in Tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar for a period of five years i.e. upto 5-1-2010. The petitioner applied for renewal/extension of his tenure as Notary along with prescribed fee by his application dated 22-12-2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 10-2-2010 renewal of his notary certificate has been refused even though the petitioner had shown reasonable cause of his illness along with the application. The impugned order has been passed without considering the factum of illness of the 2 petitioner, which caused delay in submitting the application for renewal of Notary Certificate. Since the petitioner was ill and medical certificate had been filed before the authority concerned and unless and until the medical certificate is proved to be false, the authority should have considered the certificate as genuine one. Moreover, the delay in moving the application was not inordinate and the application for renewal has been filed prior to expiry of the period, although it was to be filed three months before the expiry of the validity of the certificate. I have perused the order impugned in this writ petition. From a plain reading of the order, it is obvious that the order has been passed only on technical ground. In paragraph no. 4 of the impugned order dated 10-2-2010, the ground taken up by the petitioner for condonation of delay in moving the application is mentioned, but there is no finding on what ground the application of the petitioner has been rejected and delay was not condoned. In any view of the matter, it is not a case of inordinate delay in moving the application for renewal of notary certificate. It would be in the fitness of things and 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 writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-2-2010 (Annexures-5 to the petition) is 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. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP