IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 516 of 2010 Raghav Singh S/O Sri Ram Pati Singh, R/O Kiratpur, P.O. Danpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Law, Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Additional Secretary, Law, Secretariate, Dehradun … Respondents. Mr. H.M.Bhatia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date May 14, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-2-2010 and 11-3-2010 (Annexure 3 and 4 to the petition). The petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to condone the delay in filing the application for renewal of the notary licence of the petitioner as has been provided under the Notary Rules 1956. quashing the impugned order dated 1-2-2010 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By the impugned order the application of the petitioner for renewal of notary certificate has been rejected on the ground that the application was not filed within the stipulated time, as has been provided under Proviso appended to Rule 8(B) of the Notary Rules 1956. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Notary in district Udham Singh Nagar for a period of five years i.e. upto 17-2-2010. The petitioner applied for renewal/extension of his 2 tenure as Notary along with prescribed fee by his application dated 4-1-2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 1-2-2010, renewal of his notary certificate has been refused even though the petitioner had shown reasonable cause of his illness along with the application. By the order dated 11-3- 2010, the representation of the petitioner dated 15-2-2010 appears to have been rejected by the State Government. Since the petitioner was ill and medical certificate had been filed before the authority concerned and unless and until the medical certificate is proved to be false, the authority should have considered the certificate as genuine one. Moreover, the delay in moving the application was not inordinate and the application for renewal has been filed prior to expiry of the period, although it was to be filed three months before the expiry of the validity of the certificate. I have perused the order impugned in this writ petition. From a plain reading of the order, it is obvious that the order has been passed only on technical ground. In paragraph no. 4 of the impugned order dated 1-2-2010, the ground taken up by the petitioner for condonation of delay in moving the application is mentioned, but there is no finding on what ground the application of the petitioner has been rejected and delay was not condoned. Even the order dated 11-3-2010, which has been passed on the representation dated 15-2-2010, does not specifically disclose that the matter had been re-considered particularly on the ground of illness taken by the petitioner. In any view of the matter, it is not a case of inordinate delay in moving the application for renewal of notary certificate. 3 It would be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that delay in moving the application be condoned. Accordingly, delay in moving the renewal application by the petitioner is condoned. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 1-2-2010 as well as order dated 11-3-2010 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition) are set aside. The authority concerned is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of notary certificate expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma, J.) JM