Disposed

State of Orissa v. Pradeep Ku.Nayak

Orissa HC21 Nov 2016WA/414/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal by the State challenging a Single Judge's order remitting a Notary renewal application. The Court held that while discretion exists under the Notaries Act/Rules, the Government cannot deny renewal if the case does not fall under Section 10, provided a reasonable hearing opportunity is afforded.

What did the court decide?

The renewal application for the certificate of practice as Notary was directed to be decided afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing without objection on delay.

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the lea rned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6624 of 2015. Heard Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-appellant and Mr. S.K. Samantray-2, learned counsel for the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the application filed by the respondent-writ petiti oner for renewal of certificate of Notary was rejected by the State Government on the ground o f delay. Challenging the said order the respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 6624 of 2015 which has be en allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no reason for rejecting the delay co ndonation application has been assigned by the State Government and thus after condoning the d elay remitted the matter to the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the application for renewal of certificate of practice as Notary filed by the writ petition er. Challenging the said order this appeal has been filed by the State of Odisha. It has been submitted by Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Government Advocate that whil e remitting the matter to the State Government the learned Single Judge has taken note of deci sion of this Court rendered in the case of Nityananda Behera v. State of Orissa and another, 2 010 (I) OLR 638 which according to him, does not apply to the facts of the present case. His s ubmission is thus that after the matter is remitted back to the State Government for fresh con sideration on merits, the same may not be taken as a mandate from this Court to renew the lice nce but the State Government should consider the case of the writ petitioner on its own merit.

Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to dispose of the renewal application of the writ pet itioner in accordance with law and as such, according to him, the apprehension of the appellan t is ill-founded.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it app ears that although discretion is left with the Government under Section 5 (2) and under Rule 8 B of Rule, 1956, the State Government cannot remove or deny the renewal if the case of Notary does not fall under Section 10 of the Act, 1952. We observe that the order of the learned Sing le Judge, condoning the delay in filing the application for renewal by the petitioner is fully justified. However, while the matter is remitted back to the State Government for fresh consi deration, it is directed to decide the application for renewal of certificate of practice as N otary afresh by affording atleast reasonable opportunity of hearing, who applied for renewal. Further, we clarify that the State Government shall consider the application of the respondent -writ petitioner for renewal of the certificate of practice as Notary in accordance with law o n its own merits without taking any objection with regard to delay. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

State of Orissa v. Pradeep Ku.Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Pradeep Ku.Nayak

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

Bijoy Kumar Baral Vs Union of India

Bhupesh Chandra Vs State

H.P.C.Ltd. Vs Berhampur Muncp.

M/S.Kripal Springs Vs N.I.Co.Ltd

Kasti Turuk Vs State

Chittaranjan Vs Govt.of Orissa