Disposed

George Joseph Illickan v. State of Kereala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2011WP(C)/21907/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent to renew the petitioner's notary certification within two months. The court held that delay in processing a renewal application means it should be considered prospectively, not rejected as a fresh application because the period for renewal expired.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider and pass orders on renewal application within two months and apply decision in Asokan case prospectively.

George Joseph Illickan Vs State of Kereala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 21907 of 2006(G)

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

---------------

¶9

GEORGE JOSEPH ILLICKAN, ADVOCATE, ILLICKAL HOUSE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 141.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

-------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, NOBLE MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 21907 of 2006(G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 17.03.1995 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 06.06.1998 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 23.03.2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 23.03.2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	: TRUE COPY OF CHALAN RECEIPT NO.1541 DATED 03.03.2006.
EXT.P6	: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 03.03.2006 TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
EXT.P7	: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 03.03.2006.
EXT.P8	: TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 10.07.2006.
EXT.P9	: TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 10.07.2006.
EXT.P10	: TRUE COPY OF CASE LAW 2006(1) KLT 201.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(c)No.21907 of 2006

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2011

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Vaikom. He was appointed as a Notary by the Government of Kerala by order dated 17.03.1995 for a period of three years in and throughout Vaikom Taluk by Ext.P1. The license was renewed for a further period of three years with effect from 17.03.1998 by Ext.P2. By Ext.P4, the same was renewed for a further period of five years. The petitioner applied for further renewal with effect from 17.03.2006 by Ext.P6 application. Despite several enquiries, Ext.P8 reminder, no orders have been passed on the petitioner's application for renewal. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent for the renewal of Certificate of practice in accordance with Exhibit P6 application;

¶29

(ii) alternatively direct the respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P6 application within a time fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶30

W.P.(c)No.21907 of 2006 2

¶31

(iii) Allow such other reliefs as are deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶32

Petitioner's contention is that in view of the judgment of

¶33

this Court in Asokan v. Law Secretary (2006(1) KLT 201), restriction imposed by Rule 8(4A) will apply only in the case of appointment of fresh notaries and not in respect of applications for renewal of license to practice as a notary already existing.

¶34

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. I have heard the matter. When an application for renewal is submitted, the respondent has a duty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereof within a reasonable time.

¶35

In the above circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. While doing so, the respondent shall consider the applicability of the decision of this Court in Asokan's Case(supra). Since the application was for renewal with effect from 17.03.2006 and the period for which renewal is sought for is already over the

¶36

W.P.(c)No.21907 of 2006 3

¶37

petitioner's applications for renewal shall be considered for further period prospectively and the same shall not be rejected as a fresh application. In other words, for the delay of the respondent in considering the application of the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be prejudiced and the application shall be considered as one pending all along without rejecting the same on the ground that the period of renewal is already over.

¶38

This Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

sd/-

¶40

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶41

/True copy/

¶42

P.A. to judge

¶43

George Joseph Illickan v. State of Kereala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Joseph Illickan v. State of Kereala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varkey Chacko Vs State of Kerala

K.Sathyavan Kutty Nair Vs State of Kerala

A.Viswambharan Vs State of Kerala

G.Suresh Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Excise

K.R.Kunjukrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Jeevan Ayurvedic Beaach Resort Vs State of Kerala