THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3479 of 2006 ORDER: The action of the respondents, in refusing to renew the Notary certificate of the petitioner, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to renew the Notary certificate as per Section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952. The petitioner, a practicing advocate enrolled in the year 1986, has been practicing at Machilipatnam Courts. His name was brought on the Registrar of Notaries, maintained under Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952, in the year 2001 i.e., on 07.06.2001. A certificate of practice was issued to him for a term of three years which was to expire on 07.06.2004. As the said period was coming to an end, the petitioner claims to have submitted an application on 07.06.2004 seeking renewal for a further period of five years, but to have paid the renewal fee only on 16.06.2004. It is his case that he was suffering from typhoid since 01.06.2004 and, under such circumstances, he could not go to the District Treasury to take out the challan; he had obtained the challan No.1019 only on 16.06.2004 for Rs.500/-; on account of his ill-health the delay of ten days had occurred in the deposit of the requisite fee; he had submitted the necessary medical certificate, along with the application, despite which the 2nd respondent, by its order dated 30.06.2005, had removed his name from the Notaries Register. The petitioner would contend that he is entitled to be continued for a period of five years as specified in Section 5(1)(b) as amended by Act 36 of 1999 with effect from 17.12.1999. He would also assert that the 1st respondent had received a favourable inspection report from his subordinates regarding the petitioner’s credentials, and merely for belated payment, of the prescribed fee, of ten days the respondents ought not to have rejected his application. In the counter affidavit, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps would state that the renewal application of the certificate of practice was rejected as per Rule 10(b) of the Notaries Act, 1952; though the last date for submitting the application expired on 07.06.2004, the application was submitted, along with the receipt of challan dated 16.06.2004, and hence there occurred a delay of ten days; the petitioner’s application was received by the 2nd respondent only on 19.06.2004; and, as per the directions of the 1st respondent in memo dated 19.05.2005, the 2nd respondent had taken action to remove the name of the petitioner from the Register of Notaries. Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would assert that in the absence of any prohibition under the Act, the respondents ought to have condoned the delay in submitting the renewal application, and in payment of prescribed fee, in as much as the delay is for an inconsequential period of ten days; the petitioner had submitted a medical certificate as proof of his ill-health and, in the light of his illness and in the absence of any bar under the Act, the delay of ten days in submitting the renewal application, and in payment of prescribed fee of Rs.500/-, ought to have been condoned more so since the respondents do not deny the petitioner’s assertion that there was no blot of his integrity in any of the reports received by the respondents. On the other hand, the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that, while the counter affidavit erroneously refers to Section 10(b), the action taken against the petitioner was under Rule 8(B) of Notaries Rules, 1956 whereunder an application, for renewal of the certificate of practice, is required to be submitted to the appropriate Government three months before the date of expiry of the period of validity, and, therefore, the action of the respondents does not call for interference. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents, by the Learned Government Pleader, does not merit acceptance. Rule 8(B) was added to the Notaries Rules, 1956 by G.S.R. 686 (E) dated 31.10.2007 with effect from 31.10.2007 more than three years after the petitioner had requested for renewal of his license on 16.06.2004. As the rule has prospective application only from 31.10.2007, no reliance can be placed thereupon to justify non- renewal of a license whose period expired on 07.06.2004. Even otherwise, under the proviso to Rule 8(B), the appropriate Government is empowered, after considering the reasons stated in the application, to relax the conditions of submission of application for renewal of the certificate of practice before the specified period. The delay, in the present case, is merely of ten days and, in the absence of any averment in the counter affidavit expressing doubts on the integrity of the petitioner, I do not consider the negligible delay of ten days to be a bar for considering the petitioner’s application for renewal of his licence under the Notaries Act. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Firoz M. Battiwala v. State of Gujarat[1], and the Madras High Court in S. Ramanarayanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu[2]. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondents to condone the delay of ten days in submitting the application seeking renewal of license, and to consider the said renewal application on its merits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise in this regard, including communication of its decision to the petitioner, shall be completed by the respondents within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 30.09.2010 MRKR [1] AIR 2000 GUJARAT 304 [2] 1997(II) CTC 443