IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 14464 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.J. XAVIER, ADVOCATE, S/O. JOSEPH, 65 YEARS OF AGE, RESIDING AT VADAKKAYIL, KALAYAKANDAM, PLASSANAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.SANAL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.11.2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14464 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.3889/06 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.7121/H4/06/LAW DATED 20.10.2006 EXT.P2(A). COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 20.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE AS NOTARY DATED 04.10.2007. EXT.P3(A). COPY OF THE CHELLAN NO.00272 DATED 03.10.2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.17241/H4/07/LAW DATED 21.12.2007. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.10313/H4/2008/LAW DATED 24.07.2008. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2008 IN WP(C) NO.30950/2008. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.22362/H4/07/LAW DATED 15.1.2009. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO.167/2009/LAW DATED 25.2.2009. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE of the RESISTER. EXT.P10. COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY PALA BAR ASSOCIATION DATED 7.3.2009. EXT.P11. COPIES OF THE LATEST RENTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE ST. GEORGE LALAM NEW CHURCH, PALA. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTER INSPECTED ON 30.12.2003. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.14476/H4/02/LAW DATED 16.12.03. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.14476/H4/02/LAW DATED 16.12.03. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VK T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14464 Of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a practising Lawyer in Palai. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the Government rejecting his application for renewal of certificate of practice as a Notary under the Notaries Act. 2. In Exhibit P8 order, mainly it is pointed out that the enquiry reports point out certain violations in the sense that the petitioner is not having an independent office and he has done several attestations after the expiry of the certificate of practice on 23.10.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these two reasons should not have been relied on by the Government as they are insufficient to reject the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Exhibit P11 series, which are the receipts showing payment of rent of the office room to support his case. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was not given a personal hearing or an opportunity to file objections to the reports and therefore the order is bad in law. W.P.(C)No. 14464/09 -2- 3. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit traversing the allegations raised in the Writ Petition. The counter affidavit shows that the competent authority conducted inspection two times for processing the application. 4. The petitioner has got a case that he is a practising lawyer in the courts at Palai and he is maintaining an independent office also. Since the petitioner has produced certain materials like Exhibit P11 series before this Court, it is only proper that the petitioner is allowed to produce such materials before the Government to show that he is having an independent office and the details, if any, required concerning his practice, in the courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for an opportunity to apprise the Government about these matters. 5. In that view of the matter, I am not rendering any finding on the merits of the matter. The Government will reconsider the matter after notice to the petitioner and to enable the Government to do so, Exhibit P8 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to pass a fresh order after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and by allowing an opportunity W.P.(C)No. 14464/09 -3- to him to produce materials, he is relying upon. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn