HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3471 of2008 PETITIONER F.C.Jain VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. Post for pronouncement ofthe judgment and order on éUfgay of July, 2009 j , Sd/‘ J ‘ " Satish K. Agnihotri r Judge f HIGH COUBT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 3471 0f2008 F.C.Jain Son of Late Gopichand Jain resident 0f Aamolok Bhawan, Nayapara, Ward N0. 5, Balod, District Durg Chhattisgarh‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Law & Legislative Department, D.K.s. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ‘ Dy. Secretary, Law & Legislative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [)\ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER (Passed on .2 iffday of July, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P/3) whereby the name of the petitioner Shri Fattuchand Jain was removed from the Notary Register under provisions of Section 10(d) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act, 1952’). The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Notary by order dated 8m January, 2003 (Annexure P/l) for a period of five years. The petitioner applied for renewal of certificate of Notary on 15th October, 2007 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner received the impugned ordef dated 28th April, 2008 (Annexure P/3) whereby the name of the petitioner was removed from the Notary Register under the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Act, I952, on the ground that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was not fit to perform the work of Notary. @ 3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 28m April, 2068 (Annexure P/3) is illegal, arbitrary and with malafide intention. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. Further, the impugned order was not passed before 7th January, 2008, but thereafter when the petitioner’s application for renewal of the certificate was pending consideration. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed. Per contra, Shri Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that a complaint was made by Balod Tehsil Adhivakta Sangh on 11m October, 2006 (Annexure R/l) that the petitioner was not a member of the Bar Association of Balod and he had concealed this fact at the time of his appointment. An enquiry was conducted by the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg. In his report dated 11th May, 2007 (Annexure R/2), it was found that the complaint made against the petitioner were true and correct on certain issues. The State Government, by letter dated 19m June. 2007, requested the District & Sessions Judge, to submit a report after examining all the issues as the enquiry report dated llth May, 2007 did not discuss all the points. Second report dated 18‘“ February, 2008 (Annexure R/4) was submitted. On the basis of the report dated 18th February, a show cause notice dated 24th March, 2008 (Annexure R/5) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response to the show cause notice on 05th April, 2008 (Annexure R/6) admitting his misconduct. After having considered the report submitted by the Additional District Judge and the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The order is legal, just and. proper and has been passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ”Ha, . w r.. .. - »/-,,. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. On perusal of the report dated ll‘h May, 2007 and 18m February, 2008, it l appears that the Notary certificate was issued in the name of Fattuchand Jain. The petitioner has used Notary seal in the name of Fattechand Jain The petitioner used to charge Rs. 15/— to Rs. 150/— for notary work. In most of the cases, the petitioner used to charge Rs. 150/—. The petitioner has further not used a proper notary seal in the name of Fattuchand Jain. It was found proved that the petitioner was not using notary seal in proper name i.e. in the name of Fattuchand Jain but in the name “Fattephand Jain”. He has charged excessively from the consumers when the notary fee as notified, was Rs. 10/- for ordinary documents. The petitioner, in his rEply dated 05th April, 2008 has admitted his misconduct and irregularities committed by him as under: "W%,WWWHW&HR1WI¥IHE§K§HW geneawarmmumaffwfrmaada$wd W§wwam§mmaada$wwmw WweIWKwWaatHwétwtaa§|aa amWumaWatitwmaadqwmwel wwwawwgiemeatamm mamureffi|uammatw¥maaaawma ataatamuwWLEEoammmweataw ateaumwaatau$t¥|€wgmdtmmw '§I aet%.masuatetwafcmit€€la$ww maactaammntsauutwww$aiait§§5fe atmmwffiauamemafer£mg§mm WWI Wa$uéaamamma§ammm mae’te Imamwmumuaue‘w mammelmawauwameaa’s‘mwm gteg§eataamawagqawmata§t$wa Wmzamumwwmauagmadl” 7. Thus, it is a case wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found proved. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of e ,4, §/ hearing after repon was filed, and the petitioner has also admitted the same, In Viveka Nana’ Sethz' vi Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Othersl, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: \ “22.The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estopple will apply. (See Gurujeewan Garewal (Dr) v. Dr. Sumiz‘ra Dash). The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with i having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case (See State 0f Punjab v. Jagir Singh and Karnataka SRTC v. SGKotturappa.) ” 9. Applying the well—settled principles of law to the facts of the case where the enquiry would be an empty formality as the petitioner has admitted his fault, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- ‘Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l (2005) 5 scc 337