OAK,C.J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This special appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Notaries Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Kashi Prasad Saxena, respondent was enrolled as a Notary public in the year 1959 to practise as such at Lucknow. His certificate was renewed for a period of three years with effect from 20-8-1962. One Krishna Chandra, Advocate made a complaint against Kashi Prasad Saxena. Notary public. The State Government referred the complaint for enquiry to the competent authority, namely the District Judge, Lucknow. He framed three charges against Kashi Prasad Saxena, and submitted a report that the charges had been proved. On receiving that report from the competent authority, the State Government issued a notification on 11-3-1964 under section 10 of the Act cancelling the certificate of practice granted to Kashi Prasad Saxena. He was perpetually debarred from practising as a Notary public. Kashi Prasad Saxena filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the State Governments order dated 11-3-1964. That writ petition was dismissed by a single Judge of this Court, but was allowed by a Division Bench in special appeal. The State Governments order dated 11-3-1964 was quashed, Kashi Prasad Saxenas certificate was thereafter renewed. The State Government decided to resume action on the basis of the original complaint of Krishna Chandra, Advocate. On 3-3-1967 a notice was given to Kashi Prasad Saxena calling his explanation. He submitted an explanation. The State Government was not satisfied with the explanation. On 30-6-1967, the State Government issued another notification under Sec. 10 of the Act cancelling the certificate of practice granted to Kashi prasad Saxena. It was ordered that his name be removed from the Register of Notaries.
(2.) KASHI Prasad Saxena filed in this Court another writ petition challenging State Governments order, dated 30-6-1967. This second writ petition has been allowed by a single Judge of this Court. He has quashed the State Governments order dated 30-6-1967. The State Government has, therefore, filed the present special appeal. The impugned notification was issued by the State Government under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 enables the State Government to remove a name from the Register of Notaries, Section 10 of the Act states:- "The Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it under Section 4 the name of the notary if he- (a) . . . . (b) . . . . (c) . . . . (d) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practise as a notary." In the instant case the State Government took action under clause (d) of section 10 of the Act.
(3.) RULES have been framed under the Act. Rule 13 provides for an enquiry into allegations of professional and other misconduct of a notary. Sub-rule (1) of rule 13 states:- "Whenever there is any allegation of professional or other misconduct on the part of a notary, the appropriate Government may direct an enquiry to be made by the competent authority into the allegations." ;