IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5106 of 2010 1. Syed Imdad Imam Raza S/O Late Syed Muzaffar Raza R/O Vill.- Dahiyana, Distt.- Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department Of Law Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Law Government Of Bihar, Patna ----------- 2 18.07.2011 Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Singh, learned A.C. to G.A.5 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo dated 12.01.2010 issued by the State Government in its Department of Law bearing Memo No. 261 dated 12.01.2010 whereby and whereunder the respondents have repealed the notary licence of the petitioner with effect from the date of issuance and have removed his name from Register maintained under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The action has been taken by the respondents in purported exercise of power vested in Sub sections (b) and (f) of Section 10 of the Act. Sub section (b) of Section 10 mandates removal of the name of a Notary from the Register maintained under the Act for non payment of licence fee for the prescribed period and Sub section (f) thereof provides for removal by reason of non renewal of the certificate of practice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that either of the two grounds is not sustainable in the case of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Notary under the provisions of the Act vide Notification bearing Memo No. 844 dated 17.02.1988. 2 The licence granted to the petitioner was renewable before the expiry of 3 years. The stipulated period of 3 years as provided under Section 5 was amended and replaced by 5 years under the Amendment Act, 33 of 1999 with effect from 17.12.1999. The petitioner not aware of the amendment proceeded to deposit his renewal fee for the period beginning from 17.02.2000 and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- vide Chalan dated 20.01.2000 but instead of seeking renewal for the period 17.02.2000 to 17.02.2005, the petitioner due to inadvertence sought renewal for the period 17.2.2001 to 19.02.2003. Under the same impression, the petitioner again deposited fee for renewal for the subsequent period under Chalan dated 24.02.2003 (Annexure-3) but incorrectly mentioning the period of renewal as 24.02.2003 to 24.03.2006. It is not in dispute that for the subsequent period also the petitioner has deposited the renewal fee vide Chalan dated 01.02.2007. The aforesaid deposits were followed by a subsequent application for renewal together with Chalan dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-5). The deposit of the Chalans for renewal of licence are matters of record and are placed on records of the writ proceedings and are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the last of the Chalans dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure-5) has since been returned to the petitioner. Thus in view of the amendment to Section 5 of the Act read against the renewal deposits present at Annexures 2 to 4, the petitioner in fact had deposited advance licence fee up to the year 2015. It is by sheer ignorance of the petitioner regarding the amended provision in the Act enhancing the period of renewal of licence from 3 years to 5 years that the petitioner committed an error to pray for a renewal for 3 only 3 years. The factum of deposit is also admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit and they do not dispute the deposit of the renewal fee by the petitioner under Chalan dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure-2) and 24.02.2003 (Annexure-3). Once the respondents do not dispute the deposit of the two Chalans aforementioned, the Licence of the petitioner ought to have been renewed for the period 17.02.2000 to 16.02.2005 and again for the period 17.02.2005 to 16.02.2010 in view of the amended provisions of Section 5. It is rather strange that the respondents by ignoring this undisputed position has proceeded to cancel the licence of the petitioner and removed him from the Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act on complete misappreciation of facts apparent on the face of record in the backdrop of the statutory provisions. The respondents in support of the impugned order contend that although renewal application dated 20.01.2000 was for the period 17.02.2000 to 17.02.2005 but thereafter the next renewal was filed only on 05.01.2007 together with Chalan dated 01.02.2007(Annexure-4) and since the renewal was filed belatedly after expiry of two years hence it was violative of Sub section (b) and Sub section (f) of Section 10 of the Act. The respondents while saying so, have conveniently omitted to take note of their own statement made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit accepting the statement by the petitioner in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition regarding deposits of the chalan dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure-2) an 24.02.2003 (Annexure-3) for renewal of his Licence. The reasons assigned by the respondents for passing the 4 impugned order being contrary to the facts available on the records of the proceedings and the deposit of Chalans for renewal of licence having not being disputed by the respondents, the reason assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained. All that the respondents were required to do was to reconcile the deposit(s) made by the petitioner for renewal of his licence and if the same would have been done properly they would have realized that the petitioner in fact had deposited advance licence fee for renewal of his Notary Licence up to the year 2015. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has filed 3 applications for renewal of his Licence together with the Chalan dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure-2), Chalan dated 24.02.2003 (Annexure-3) and Chalan dated 01.02.2007 (Annexure-4) and if the records are properly reconciled, those are sufficient to renew his application until the year 2015. That being the position, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed. Needless to add that the respondents shall proceed accordingly to restore the Notary Licence of the petitioner with upto date renewal and which shall be done expeditiously and preferably within six weeks of production/receipt of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)