The High Court set aside a two-year suspension of notaries as disproportionate. The court held the punishment offended the doctrine of proportionality and modified the penalty to a warning instead.
The order of penalty is modified from Suspension to one of Warning; the warning shall not be a ground for denying renewal of license.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.2671 OF 2020 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1909 OF 2020 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.3192 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.2671/2020:
BETWEEN:
SRI.G.N. VENKATARAVANAPPA, S/O. LATE. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 99F, KRISHNA BUILDING, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 002. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN.
IN W.P.NO.1909/2020:
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
3
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN FILE NO.LAW 415 LCL 2015 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN NO.LAW 415 LCL 2015 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS SUSPENDING THE PETITIONERS FROM PRACTICING AS NOTARIES FOR A PERIOD TWO YEARS, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NOTIFIED COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E., PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
IN W.P.NO.3192/2020:
BETWEEN:
4
R/AT NO. 434/98, NO 2, 1ST MAIN, PRASHANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 079.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2020 ANNEXURE-D.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
In all these cases, the Notaries Public happen to be the
petitioners; they are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Government Order dated 13.01.2020 whereby they have been put under suspension for a period of two years in exercise of power under Rule 13(12)(b)(ii) of the Notary Rules, 1956.
3.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
6
a) It is not the case of the respondents that the lapses
attributable to the petitioners are grave in nature; lapses they have committed is true; but, two year suspension is too long a period and it offends the sense of proportion vide MANAGEMENT OF COIMBAORE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK vs. SECRETARY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, (2007) 4 SCC 669; Lord Diplock in R Vs. Goldstein, 1983 1 W.L.R. 151 states “this would indeed be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut ”; this comment which beautifully portrays the doctrine of proportionality aptly applies to the case at hand inasmuch as, the jurisdictional Principal District Judge himself in his report dated 31.01.2019 after enquiry had recommended the penalty of ‘Warning’.
b) The respondents have not given any reason as to why the specific recommendation of the Principal District Judge has not been accepted; except referring to his report, there is no due consideration of the recommendation; obviously, the ‘Warning’ too is a penalty prescribed by the extant Rules; thus, there is non-application of mind to the factor relevant to
7
the consideration of matter and that vitiates the impugned order.
c) This Court had stayed the impugned order in the individual petitions; since then the petitioners have been practising as Notaries Public without any complaint whatsoever; even, the sealed cover reports submitted by the Karnataka State Bar Council and Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, do not state about their culpability; the order of punishment by any standard is disproportionate and too harsh; that may affect their prospects as Notaries Public; mistakes do occur in any occupation; however, they cannot be overblown out of proportion.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; the order of penalty is modified from Suspension to one of Warning and that the same shall not per se be a ground for denying renewal of license if applied for.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the two-year suspension imposed under Notary Rules is disproportionate and requires modification.
Whether the penalty imposes a disproportionate punishment offends the doctrine of proportionality.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R Vs. GoldsteinExplained¶58
R Vs. Goldstein, 1983 1 W.L.R. 151
SRI.G.N. VENKATARAVANAPPA AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court