High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Aditya Prakash Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 27558 of 2003  RD-AH 3636 (16 February 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27558 of 2003
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
The petitioner had been appointed as Notary Public by the State Government. By the impugned order dated 19th March 2003, annexure-3 to this writ petition, his prayer for renewal of his tenure has been rejected and his name has been ordered to be removed from the register of Notaries maintained under section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952 on the ground that he had not deposited the prescribed stamp duty for the purposes of such renewal.
It appears that the stamp duty had been enhanced to Rs. 2000/- and the petitioner had merely deposited Rs. 500/- as per the old rate of stamp duty. This is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit of the State. However, the counter affidavit indicates that because of this deficiency of Rs. 1500/-, the State Government proceeded to reject the prayer for renewal straight away. It does not appear that when this deficiency was discovered by the State Government, the petitioner was ever given any notice or opportunity to make good the deficiency.
Even in the Courts where a plaint or memo of appeal is filed with insufficient court fees, the statute requires an opportunity to be given to the litigant to make good the deficiency of the court fee, before rejecting the plaint or memo of appeal.
We should think that on the administrative side the State Government should adopt an approach of fairness and not of rigidity. It would not be appropriate on part of a welfare State to find out some technical loophole or error to reject the prayers of the citizens without giving the citizen an opportunity after notice to make good the deficiency of any technical requirement, unless such opportunity causes prejudice to any other party or to the State.
We are of the opinion that if the petitioner had been given a notice giving him time to make good the deficiency of the stamp duty, it would not have caused any prejudice to the State or to any other party.
We are, therefore, unable to sustain the impugned order dated 19.3.2003, annexure-3 to this writ petition. According to the petitioner he has already supplied the balance stamp duty subsequent to the order dated 19.3.2003. In the circumstances, we require the respondent No. 1 to consider within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Law Secretary, U.P. Government, the question of renewal of the tenure of the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Dated : February 16, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.