Allowed

V.Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Dec 2022WP/45579/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order allowing five writ petitions challenging the rejection of Notary Certificate renewals. The Court held that renewal is a rule and refusal an exception absent valid grounds, setting aside a specific operational memo based on prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Memo No.31617/Regn.II/A1/2012-4 dated 31.08.2015 is set aside; writ petitions allowed.

V.Srinivasulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.27492, 37603, 35104, 38464 and 45579 of 2016.

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

1) W.P. No.27492 of 2016:

¶5

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶6

“…to issue a writ order or orders more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the entire record leading upto impugned orders vide letter No.G2/704/2016, dated 13.07.2016 of the 1^st petitioner and the impugned orders vide letter No.G2/703/2016 dated 13.07.2016 of the 2^nd petitioner herein refusing the renewal of the petitioner’s Notary Certificate is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and law laid down by the apex courts and set aside the same, further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to renewal the Notary Certificates of the petitioners which is mandatory as per law and pass such other or further orders …”

¶7

2) W.P. No.37603 of 2016:

¶8

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶9

of India seeking following relief:

¶10

“…to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1^st respondent issued vide 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 provisions of Notaries Act and Rules and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to renew the notary license of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders …”

¶11

3) W.P. No.35104 of 2016:

¶12

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶13

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the proceedings of the 1^st respondent issued in Memo No.31617/Regn.II/A1/2012-4, dated 31.08.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provision of Notaries Act and Rules and pass such other or further orders…”

¶14

4) W.P. No.38464 of 2016:

¶15

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶16

of India seeking following relief:

¶17

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 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, consequently, direct the Respondent No.2 to renew the application of the petitioner certificate of practice without reference to Memo No.31617/Regn.II/A1/2012-4, dated 31.08.2015,

¶18

and pass such other order or orders …”

¶19

5) W.P. No.45579 of 2016:

¶20

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶21

“…to issue Writ or Order or Direction or any other appropriate Order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1^st 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

¶22

provisions of Notaries Act and Rules and set aside the same and pass such other or further orders …”

¶23

As the issue involved in all these cases is challenging the Memo No.31617/Regn.II/A1/2012-4, dated 31.08.2015, basing on which the applications for renewal to practice as notary was rejected by the Chief Secretary to Government, the said writ petitions are decided by way of a common order.

¶24

Today, when these matters came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits that all these cases are related to renewal of petitioner(s) Notary Certificate and had produced a copy of this Court’s Judgment in W.P. No.9655 of 2016 and batch, dated 02.12.2016, wherein this Court under similar circumstances had allowed the writ petition relying upon identical case, which was considered before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Tarun Mehta and others v. State of Rajasthan and others¹ , wherein the Court held as under:

¶25

“….the entitlement of a person appointed as a

¶26

notary public once registered as such was automatic on

¶27

1 AIR 2010 Rajasthan 106

¶28

making an application and payment of fee. It is true that after the amendment introduced as aforesaid, a discretion is vested with the State Government to grant the renewal or refuse it. But then, such discretion vested is not absolute and the same has to be exercised judicially. In considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the scheme of the act, even after the amendment introduced as aforesaid, the grant of renewal of the licence for authorization is a rule and the rejection an exception. Therefore, ordinarily, if there is nothing adverse against the person seeking renewal of the certificate of authorization to practice as notary then the same would not be refused.”

¶29

3. From the above, it is clear that until and unless there exists a valid reason for rejection, the renewal is automatic on making an application and on payment of fee. Even otherwise, if an application made for renewal is sought to be rejected, a notice is essential to be issued to the aggrieved person for giving him an opportunity to submit explanation.

¶30

In view of the fact that the issue involved in all these cases is already decided by this Court in W.P. No.9655 of 2016 and batch by an order dated 02.12.2016, this Court feels it appropriate to allow these writ petitions by setting aside the impugned Memo

¶31

No.31617/Regn.II/A1/2012-4, dated 31.08.2015, which is the basis

¶32

for rejecting the renewal of the Notary Certificate.

¶33

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶34

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in

¶35

these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.

V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 21.12.2022

ASH

263

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶41

WRIT PETITION Nos.27492, 37603, 35104, 38464 and 45579 of 2016.

¶42

Date: 21.12.2022

¶43

ASH

V.Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bonthala Reddamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chitala Ramaiah S/o Venkataiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chilakala Malakonda Reddy, Prakasam Dist and Anr. Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

M/S. Uma Group of Companies, Eluru, W.G.Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Revenue,Guntur Dist.,and 4 Otrs.

Adapa Anandarao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh