Judgment:
ORDER
1. 15.7.1998 - Heard Shri Ratho for the petitioner and Shri K. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application seeks quashing of notification dated 5th May, 1998 of the Government of Orissa, Law Department (Annexure - 3) temporarily suspending him from notarial practice for a period of six months. His contention is that the impugned order of suspension is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956.
3. The matter was listed for admission on 29.6.1998. In view of the limited point raised by the petitioner, we required the learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the relevant Government file which was produced. We have perused it. The impugned order of suspension reads as follows :
'No. III-J-3/96............../L. Keeping pending inquiry on the report of the Additional District Magistrate and District Registrar, Jagatsinghpur, Sri Chaturbhuja Acharya, Notary, Jagatsinghpur district; is temporarily suspended from notarial practice in the interest of public under Rule 13 (1)(b)(ii) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 for a period of six months with effect from the date of issue of this notification.'
On perusal of file, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Jagatsinghpur in his letter dated 20.1.1996 brought to the notice of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department (copy to Legal Remembrancer of the Government) that the petitioner as notary has been attesting/authenticating/certifying documents pertaining to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift etc. and has also been propagating that such notarisation made by him amounts to registration of documents. Such documents which are compulsorily registrable under law escape from payment of registration charges and stamp duty. He has accordingly requested the State Government to examine the issue. The Government in the Law Department on the basis of the report has suspended the notarial practice of the petitioner pending further inquiry.
4. Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 provides, inter alia, that enquiry into the misconduct of a notary may be initiated either suo motu by the appropriate Government or on a complaint received and the appropriate Government shall send to the Notary a statement specifying the charge/charges against him requiring him to submit written statement in his defence and thereafter pass appropriate orders. The aforesaid procedure was not followed in the present case and in our opinion there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
5. On our direction, the petitioner is present in Court today. He has filed an affidavit affirmed by him stating, inter alia, as follows:
'That during my Notary practice, after attesting/ authenticating/certifying documents pertaining to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, partition including mortgaged deeds and notirising deeds including the deeds of above nature, I have never insisted the executants to avoid registration of the above-named documents. In future also I have no intention to advise to avoid registration of the above documents after authentication of those documents by me. I undertake to act as per the Act, Rules and instructions of Government and not to in any manner advise executants to avoid registration of any document which is required to be registered under the Registration Act or any other law.'
6. Considering the submission of the counsel for parties and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner to this Court today, the impugned order at Annexure-3 is quashed.
The writ application is accordingly allowed.