IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.950 of 2009 4 30.6.2010 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna ......... Respondents – Appellants VERSUS Arun Kumar, Son of Late Lal Babu Keshri, resident of Mohalla – Dalhatta (Marufganj), P.S. Malsalami, Patna City, District- Patna ....... Petitioner- Respondent -------- For the Appellant : Mr Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA 5 For the Respondent: M/s Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, Tej Pratap Singh, Shankar Kumar Thakur and Anjan Singh, Advocates ------- After hearing the parties in respect of Limitation Petition (I.A. No.4581 of 2009), the delay of 70 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The Limitation Petition stands allowed. Heard the parties in detail on merits of this appeal. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that the Writ Court should not have insisted on adherence to the prescribed rules or procedure for holding the inquiry before removing name of the writ petitioner from the Register of Notaries because in the show cause to a notice the writ petitioner admitted certain facts including 2 the fact that he acted upon the signature of the deponent which was not made in his presence because the deponent was a State Minister and repeated request was made to him to notarize the document. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted on the basis of provisions in Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Rule 13 of the Rules framed thereunder that under the statutory provisions a detailed procedure of inquiry is envisaged and the Writ Court has rightly held that even after inquiry the competent officer who prepares the report of the inquiry, is required to serve a copy of the inquiry report upon the delinquent notary giving him an opportunity of making representation before the State Government to formulate its opinion on the basis of such report. According to learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the State Government has various options short of removing the name from Register of the Notaries and hence, such opportunity is not an empty formality. After going through the judgment and order under appeal, we find no good reason to interfere with the 3 same when the Writ Court has given an opportunity to the State Government to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. We find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed summarily. (R. M. Doshit,CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) sk