Chhattisgarh HC Restores Two Notaries’ Names After Quashing Removal Over Alleged Post-Expiry Practice Without a Rule 13 Inquiry

The petitioners, advocates appointed as notaries by the State, sought renewal of their certificates of practice.

The State rejected their renewal applications and ordered their names deleted from the Register of Notaries, alleging that they had practised after their certificates expired, contrary to Section 9 of the Notaries Act, 1952.

In the lead petition, an earlier rejection had been set aside by the High Court, which directed the authority to pass a reasoned order; the authority subsequently issued a fresh rejection on the Section 9 ground.

The petitioners challenged the orders, contending that no inquiry under Section 10(d) of the Act and Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 had been held.

The State maintained that the petitioners had practised without valid certificates and that their removal was lawful.

Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 provides for the issue and renewal of a certificate of practice, while Section 9 bars notarial practice unless a certificate is in force.

Under Section 10(d), removal for professional or other misconduct requires a finding, following an inquiry in the prescribed manner, that the notary is unfit to practise; Rule 13 prescribes the inquiry procedure, including notice of charges and supporting material where an inquiry is initiated suo motu, consideration of the notary’s response, and an inquiry by the competent authority where a prima facie case exists.

The Court applied the principle that where legislation prescribes a procedure, the authority must follow that procedure, and that adverse administrative action with civil consequences must comply with natural justice.

The authority relied on the allegation that the petitioners had performed notarial acts after their certificates expired, but the Court found that no inquiry under Section 10(d) and Rule 13 had been conducted before the adverse orders were made.

Although a show-cause notice and reply had preceded the decision, the Court held that these did not substitute for the prescribed inquiry into the alleged misconduct.

The petitioners were therefore denied a meaningful opportunity to rebut the allegation, and the authority had not complied with the statutory procedure governing removal from the Register.

Both writ petitions were allowed, the orders were quashed, and the State was directed to restore the petitioners’ names to the Register of Notaries forthwith.

The State retained liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules, if so advised.