2025:UHC:8895 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 7 of 2025 08 October, 2025 Sunil Kumar Goyal … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents With Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2733 of 2025 Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1391 of 2025 Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1732 of 2025 Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2788 of 2025 Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2790 of 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Mr. Devesh Upreti and Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Applications submitted by petitioners for renewal of Certificate of Practice as Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 have been rejected in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government, not to grant renewal to persons who have practiced as Notary for more than ten years. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the decision taken by State Government. 2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 7 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed. 1 2025:UHC:8895 3. Petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1983. He was appointed as Notary for a period of five years in the year 2000, and his Certificate of Practice was renewed from time to time, as per Rule 8B of The Notaries Rules, 1956. His Certificate of Practice was last renewed in 2020, which was valid upto 05.01.2025; petitioner applied for renewal of Certificate of Practice in the month of June, 2024; District Magistrate, Haridwar, based on a report submitted by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, recommended petitioner’s claim for renewal. State Government rejected petitioner’s application for renewal, vide order dated 05.12.2024 on the ground that petitioner has practiced as Notary for more than ten years, therefore, no further renewal can be granted to him. 4. Petitioner contends that the reason assigned for rejecting his application is de-hors the provisions of The Notaries Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder; there is no condition in the Statute that after practicing as Notary, for ten years, prayer for renewal of Certificate of Practice cannot be granted. It is further submitted that renewal can be refused only on the grounds enumerated in Section 10(b) to (f) of the Act or if there is adverse report as regards character, integrity, ability or competence of the person who has applied for renewal of Certificate of Practice. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Rajesh Kuamar, Joint Secretary, Law-cum-Joint L.R., Law Department, Government. Para 10 & 13 of the said counter affidavit are extracted below:- 2 2025:UHC:8895 “10. That the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the said petition are wrong, false and vehemently denied. In reply it is stated that after receiving letter dated 02.07.2024 from respondent no. 2, the answering respondent forwarded the file to Departmental Minister/Hon’ble the Chief Minister for the necessary approval. The Departmental Minister/Hon’ble the Chief Minister in view of the policy decision taken for renewal of the Notary Certificate, rejected the renewal Notary Certificates of the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner has been empaneled as Notary for past more than 10 years, renewal is not mandatory and chance should be given to new capable energetic person. Thus, the file was returned with the said noting for inviting the fresh panel. Therefore, in compliance of the aforesaid noting, impugned order dated 05.12.2024 was issued by the answering respondent refusing the renewal of the Notary Certificate of the petitioner and thereby directing the respondent no. 2 to call for new panel. In further reply it is stated that Act No. 53 of 1952 does not contain any provision laying down mandatory approval of the renewal application, therefore, the impugned order is in consonance with the statutory provisions and has been taken as per the policy with the statutory provisions and has been taken as per the policy decision of the State. Hence, the order is legal and valid and deserves to be upheld. Copy of the relevant portion of the note-sheet along with its typed copy is being marked and filed as Annexure No. A-2 to this affidavit. 13. That the contents of paragraph no. 12 and 13 of the said petition are admitted in so far as they are matter of record. Remaining contents are wrong, false and vehemently denied. Section 10(f) of Notaries Act, 1952 categorically provides that if certificate of practice is not renewed the name shall be renewed. In the instant since the petitioner has already served as a Notary for more than 10 years therefore decision has been taken to invite new panel, which means that State has taken the decision to not renew the notary certificate of the petitioner leading to removal of the name of the petitioner from the register under section 10(f) of Notaries Act, 1952.” 6. The sole justification offered by State Government, for not renewing the Certificate of Practice of petitioner, is that he practiced as Notary for more than ten years, therefore, with a view to give opportunity to fresh and energetic persons, grant of renewal to petitioner was found undesirable. It is thus apparent that request made by petitioner for renewal of Certificate of Practice was not considered at all in view 3 2025:UHC:8895 of the decision taken by State Government. 7. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that when the field is covered by The Notaries Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the policy decision taken by State Government cannot override Statutory provisions. It is further submitted that State Government cannot take policy decision, not to consider the application for renewal merely because someone has practiced for ten years. It is further contended that the decision taken by State Government, not to renew the Certificate of Practice of petitioners, who have practiced as Notary for ten years or more, is de-hors the Statute, thus unsustainable. 8. The Parliament enacted The Notaries Act, 1952, which came into force on 14.02.1956. Section 3 thereof enables the Central Government and also the State Government to appoint any Legal Practitioners or other persons who possess prescribed qualifications, as Notary. Section 5(1) provides that after being appointed as Notary, a person will be entitled to have his name entered in the Register maintained by that Government under Section 4, and also to a certificate authorizing him to practice for a period of five years. Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 provides for renewal of Certificate of Practice of a Notary for a period of five years at a time. Section 5 of The Notaries Act, 1952 is reproduced below for ready reference:- “5. Entry of names in the Register and issue or renewal of certificates of practice.—(1) Every notary who intends to practise as such '[may], on payment to the Government appointing him of the prescribed fee, if any, be entitled— 4 2025:UHC:8895 (a) to have his name entered in the Register maintained by that Government under section 4; and (b) to a certificate authorising him to practise for a period of 2[five years] from the date on which the certificate is issued to him. [(2) The Government appointing the notary, may, on receipt of' an application and the prescribed fee, 'renew the certificate of practice of any notary for a period of five years at a. time.]” 9. Section 10 of The Notaries Act, 1952 enumerates the grounds on which name of a Notary can be removed from the Register maintained under Section 4. Refusal on the part of State Government, to renew the Certificate of Practice of the petitioner, is not referable to any of the grounds enumerated in Section 10 of the Act. 10. Central Government has framed Rules in exercise of power under Section 15 of The Notaries Act, 1952 which are known as “The Notaries Rules, 1956”. Rule 3 lays down the qualifications for appointment as Notary. Rule 4 provides that application for appointment as Notary may be made online in Form – I or Form II. Rule 6, 7, 7A & 7B of the said Rules lay down the manner in which the application for appointment as Notary has to be dealt with. 11. Rule 8(1) deals with appointment of a Notary. Rule 8B of The Notaries Rules, 1956 deals with renewal of Certificate of Practice, therefore, would be relevant for deciding the issue involved in these writ petitions. Rule 8B of the Rules is extracted below:- “8B. Renewal of Certificate of Practice- The Certificate of Practice issued under sub-rule (4) of rule 8 may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be submitted online in Form XVI to the 5 2025:UHC:8895 appropriate Government before (six months) from the date of expiry of its period of validity. Provided that the appropriate Government may, after considering the reasons stated in the application, relax the condition of submission of application for renewal of Certificate of Practice before the said period of six months. Provided further that where an application for renewal of Certificate of Practice is received within one year after the date of expiry of its period of validity, the appropriate Government may, after considering the reasons stated in the application, renew the Certificate of Practice within effect from the date of expiry of its period of validity.” 12. From the provisions contained in The Notaries Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder, it is revealed that neither any upper age limit has been prescribed by the Statute beyond which Certificate of Practice cannot be renewed nor there is any restriction regarding the number of times, Certificate of Practice can be renewed. Prayer for renewal of Certificate thus can be rejected, if the applicant is guilty of professional or other misconduct or he is convicted by any court for an offence involving moral turpitude; he is an un- discharged insolvent or for some other sufficient cause. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he was found guilty of professional or other misconduct, which may render him unfit to practice as a Notary, nor does he suffer from any other disqualification enumerated in Section 10 of The Notaries Act, 1952. The application for renewal was made by petitioner well within time, as per Rule 8B of The Notaries Rules, 1956 and the Competent Authority recommended petitioner’s claim for renewal to State Government after calling report from the concerned District Level Authority. 13. Careful perusal of Rule 8B would reveal that Certificate of Practice, issued under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 8, has to be ordinarily renewed for a further 6 2025:UHC:8895 period of five years, subject to payment of prescribed fee and there is little discretion left with the Government in the matter. Although Rule 8B provides that application for renewal has to be submitted before the appropriate Government six months before date of expiry of the period of its validity. However, the said condition is relaxable and an application for renewal, received within one year after the date of expiry period of its validity, can also be entertained and the Certificate of Practice can be renewed with effect from the date of expiry of its period of validity. 14. A conjoint reading of Section 5(2) of The Notaries Act, 1952 and Rule 8B of The Notaries Rules, 1956 would reveal that prayer for renewal of Certificate of Practice has to be ordinarily granted and renewal can be refused only for reasons, which are referable to the provisions of the Statute, covering the field. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that State Government has to exercise Statutory powers conferred under The Notaries Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder. While exercising those Statutory powers, State Government is bound by the Statutory provisions and it cannot impose some condition for renewal of Certificate of Practice, which is de-hors the provisions of the Statute. 16. From the stand taken by State Government in its counter affidavit, it is evident that State Government did not consider the application for renewal submitted by petitioner, even though it was recommended by the Competent Authority. The only 7 2025:UHC:8895 reason for not considering the application for renewal made by petitioner indicated in the counter affidavit is that petitioners has practiced for ten years or more as Notary. This cannot be a valid reason for not considering the prayer made by petitioner for renewal. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the decision taken by State Government, not to consider applications made by petitioners for renewal of their Certificate of Practice, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2024, issued by Principal Secretary (Law) / Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttarakhand, is quashed and set aside. State Government is directed to consider the applications for renewal made by petitioners and pass appropriate order, as per law, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the persons, who have been appointed as Notary in the selection held pursuant to the process initiated by the impugned order, shall not be disturbed. ________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 08.10.2025 Aswal 8 NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3 a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22D ACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.10.16 05:44:01 -07'00'