Partly allowed

Sri Muniswamy Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/13323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition in part, setting aside the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's notary public certificate. The matter was remitted to the respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report before passing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed in part. Impugned order set aside. Matter remitted to respondent to provide opportunity for explanation and pass fresh order within eight weeks.

Sri Muniswamy Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45287 WP No. 13323 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 13323 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUNISWAMY REDDY S/O NAYATHAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/A GAURIBIDANUR TOWN CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF AKRNATAKA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION-2) VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶13

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SMT. THIMMAKKA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶17

W/O LATE B.B. VENKATESH REDDY R/A GUNDAPURA VILLAGE GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. THIMMAKKA R2(PARTY-IN-PERSON) PRESENT)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:45287 WP No. 13323 of 2021

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS ITS NO. LAWLCL/59/2019, BENGALURU PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-M IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to setaside/quash the impugned Order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.1, produced at Annexure-M in and by which a decision has been taken to cancel certificate of notary public of the petitioner and restraining him from discharging the functions of notary public.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the

¶27

grounds urged in the writ petition, though submits that the report of the Competent Authority under Rule 13(2) of the Notaries Rules 1956 was not furnished to the petitioner

¶28

and the petitioner was not given an opportunity of giving

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45287 WP No. 13323 of 2021

¶30

explanation, he is unable to point out specific Rule under the Notaries Rules 1956 providing for such an opportunity be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner however relies upon the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Suvarnamma Vs The State of Karnataka decided on 31.01.2022 in W.P.No.929/2021, and submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in identical facts situation of the matter had granted the relief.

¶31

The said Order reads as under:

¶32

''The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.2671/2020 and connected matters that have been disposed off by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2021, at least as far as the infraction of the procedure wrongly adopted by the respondent in making the impugned order, is concerned.

¶33

2. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the respondent though vehemently opposed the writ petition is not in a position to differentiate the fact matrix of the case as to the procedure to be followed. In view of that, matter merits a remand for fresh consideration after following the due procedure namely the furnishing a copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner and of having his say over the same, in terms of decision of Apex Court in UNION OF

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45287 WP No. 13323 of 2021

¶35

INDIA v. MOHD. RAMZAN KHAN, (1991) 1 SCC 588.

¶36

3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; impugned order is set at naught. The matter is remitted to the respondent for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Petitioner's name would continue in the Registry as before subject to out come of remand.

¶37

Costs made easy.''

¶38

Even though there is no provisions under Rule of

¶39

the Notaries Rules 1956 warranting furnishing of the report and calling for response from the petitioner, in the interest of maintaining judicial discipline and on the principle of parity, in view of the Order passed in aforesaid W.P.No. 929/2021, this Court is of the view that similar

¶40

benefit be extended to the petitioner in this petition as well.

¶41

As seen from the records, the petitioner has enclosed enquiry report at Annexure-L to the writ petition. Therefore, the requirement of furnishing of the report to

¶42

the petitioner may not arise. However, the petitioner may give his response to the said report.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:45287 WP No. 13323 of 2021

¶45

Accordingly the following.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i). The petition is allowed in part.

¶48

ii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1-State who shall after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his response to the report dated 31.12.2020 and pass appropriate Order within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the response from the petitioner.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Muniswamy Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniswamy Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Mujahid B Makki Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanjay Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Chetana Manoj Vs Authorized Officer

Smt Vimala @ Akkamma Vs Smt P Pallavi

Smt. M. S. Sulochana Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. X Vs State of Karnataka