Disposed

Mr.v.Leela Prasad v. Government of India., rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC2 Nov 2011WP/5634/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Central Government to decide a long-pending application for appointment as Notary Public within 30 days, citing unreasonable delay and the judicially-recognized duty of promptness in exercising statutory discretion.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's memorial dated 21.06.2006 within 30 days.

Mr.v.Leela Prasad Vs Government of India., rep.by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.5634 of 2010

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Mr. V. Leela Prasad.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Government of India, Rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. VIKRAM

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: MR. S. RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶14

The Court made the following order:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in not passing appropriate orders on the memorial dated 21.06.2006 sent by him for appointment and admission as Notary Public under the Notaries Act, 1952.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the memorial

¶18

is dated 21.06.2006, two junior advocates, who had applied after him, were appointed as Notary Public but his application was kept pending. He has also filed a copy of the reply received by the petitioner from the respondent under the Right to Information Act dated 29.12.2008, which states that his application is pending processing and consideration and that no time limit is prescribed under the Notaries Act or the Rules and that efforts are being made for streamlining the system. Waiting for two more years, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶19

3. The respondent has filed a counter wherein for the first time it is stated that the petitioner’s application is incomplete and that the delay in processing the application of the petitioner is due to huge number of applications received from all over the country, which needs examination and scrutiny. The respondent has also stressed on the contention that no time limit is prescribed under the Notaries Act and that Section 3 of the Notaries Act confers discretion on the Central Government.

¶20

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent, it is evident that the petitioner’s application though pending from June 2006, is neither considered nor appropriate orders are passed even now. Further, though the information under the Right to Information Act does not speak of petitioner’s application being incomplete,

¶21

the counter affidavit, for the first time, mentions the said ground without giving any details as to the manner in which the application is incomplete. If really, the said application was incomplete the reply given by the respondent under the Right to Information Act would have clearly mentioned the same whereas, on the contrary, as per the said reply the petitioner’s application is under processing and consideration. Further, under Section 3 of the Notaries

¶22

Act though discretion is with the respondent/Central Government, the discretion must be exercised in judicious manner by showing reasonable promptness. The inordinate delay on the part of the respondent is, therefore, not justified on any ground.

¶23

5. Since the consideration of the petitioner’s application is overdue, the respondent is directed to consider, process and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s memorial (application) dated 21.06.2006 within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

November 2, 2011 DSK

Mr.v.Leela Prasad v. Government of India., rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.v.Leela Prasad v. Government of India., rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Peddakatamaiah Vs The Estate Officer, South Central Railway

Venkata Apparao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

D. Mohan Kumar, Vs The State rep by the Director of Mines and Geology

M/s. Padmalaya Telefilms Limited, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (P.D)

Mullapudi Subba Rao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum

Mullapudi Subba Rao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology cum