Remanded

Bhima Leela Krishna, v. Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC20 Jan 2016WP/39535/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting a notary licence renewal because the examiner failed to notice the petitioner's affidavit and medical certificate explaining the delay. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent for fresh consideration within two months.

Bhima Leela Krishna, Vs Union of India, rep. by its… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

lIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.39535 of 2015

¶5

BETWEEN Bhima Leela Krishna … PETITIONER AND

¶6

Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Date of Order pronounced: 20.01.2016

¶9

ORDER:-

¶10

Petitioner was granted a Certificate as a notary public on 04.11.2015 valid upto 10.05.2005, which was once renewed in the year 2010 and was due to expire on 10.05.2015. Petitioner made an application seeking renewal on 13.03.2015. On receipt thereof respondent No.2 sent a Communication F.No.5(35)/2005-NC dated 21.05.2015 pointing out that petitioner’s application is delayed by 122 days and requested the petitioner to explain the delay with supporting documents. Petitioner states that accordingly he submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2015 and medical certificate dated 10.06.2015 under a covering letter Ex.P5 dated 12.06.2015 to respondent No.2. However, it appears that without noticing the said documents filed by the petitioner, under the impugned order dated 04.11.2015 Ex.P1 the renewal

¶11

requested by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner has not sought renewal before six months of expiry of earlier permission. The said rejection order is questioned in the writ petition.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General, who was already granted time twice to get instructions.

¶13

3. Apparently, petitioner has complied with the directions of respondent No.2 on 21.05.2015, referred to above, and sent the affidavit and the medical certificate along with the covering letter dated 12.06.2015. However, the same appears to have not been noticed by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order and accordingly the impugned order came to be passed as if the petitioner has applied for renewal beyond the period prescribed. In my view, there appears to be a factual mistake in not noticing the request for condonation of delay together with the documents, referred to above, sent by the petitioner on 12.06.2015.

¶14

4. In view of that, it is appropriate that the matter requires fresh consideration by respondent No.2 and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The entire issue regarding renewal of petitioner’s licence as a notary public shall stand remitted to respondent No.2, who shall examine the petitioner’s application together with his subsequent correspondence and then consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within two months.

¶15

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

As a sequel the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶18

January 20, 2016 LMV

Bhima Leela Krishna, v. Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhima Leela Krishna, v. Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

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

Ponnaganti Vijayasri, D/o. Sitaramayya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gogineni Sridevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

N.R. Giridhar Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Burra Bondaiah Vs The State of Telangana, Revenue Department

Dr. S.Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

R.Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary