Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8540 (UTT)

Ghanshyam Singh Snehi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2026-01-09

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Since in all these writ petitions identical issue are involved, therefore, for the sake of brevity all the writ petitions are clubbed together and decided by a common order. 2. In all these petitions the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttarakhand Dehradun. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is completely contrary to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench on 08.10.2025 in bunch of wirt petitions the leading one WPMS No. 7 of 2025, Sunil Kumar Goyal vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The relevant extract of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench are being reproduced herein as under:- “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 (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. [(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. 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 undischarged 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 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. 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. 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.” 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application of the petitioners for renewal has been rejected by the order impugned on the reason, which, in fact was already quashed by the Coordinate Bench and instead of deciding the application of renewal on its own merit, the same has been rejected on the reason as reflected from the earlier order dated 05.12.2024 which was already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State fairly submits that the impugned order appears to be contrary to the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench. 5. Since, the order impugned has been passed being influenced with the earlier order dated 05.12.2024 which was already quashed by the Coordinate Bench, the order impugned cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned passed by the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent authority to consider the application of each of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law, and as per the mandate of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 08.10.2025 passed in bunch of petitions, the leading one is WPMS No. 7 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Goyal vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of his order. 7. No order as to costs.