The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring a memo restricting the number of notaries illegal and violative of Article 19(1)(g). The court, noting that an interim order already ensured redress, closed the writ petition without costs.
None granted; Writ Petition No. 13824 of 2016 closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No. 13824 of 2016
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief :-
“...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent issued in Memo No 31617/Regn. II/A1/2012-4 dated 31.08.2015 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Provision of Notaries Act and Rules..”
following interim order was granted:-
“Having regard to the order dated 04.04.2012 in W.P.No. 12440 of 2001 and 19118 of 2009, wherein Sub-Rule 4-A of Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 which restricts the number of Notaries who may be appointed in the State or Union Territory was declared unconstitutional, the impugned Memo. No. 31617 dated 31.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of a letter D.No.5 (271)/2000-NC, dated 18.05.2001 to restrict number of Notaries to be appointed on each State, cannot be sustained.
In spite of the fact that time was granted on 28.03.2016 for filing counter-affidavit, the counter-affidavit was not filed and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration states that on the basis of the letter issued by the Union of India referred to above, the impugned order is passed.
There shall be interim direction and interim suspension as prayed for.”
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the
2
interim order granted by this Court on 22.04.2016, the grievance of the petitioner is redressed. Therefore, the present writ petition may be closed.
the petitioner, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
shall also stand closed.
SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
14.12.2022 Psr.
3
143
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
(Closed)
Writ Petition. No. 13824 OF 2016
Date: 14.12.2022
Psr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grievance of the petitioner is redressed in view of the interim order granted on 22.04.2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No. 12440 of 2001 and 19118 of 2009 (order dated 04.04.2012)Referred¶9
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Justice V. Sujatha
1st Respondent
Justice V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
