Court upholds show cause notice, grants petitioner reply opportunity within two weeks. Competent Authority to follow Rule 13.

The court found the show cause notice was not issued without jurisdiction and disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the opportunity to reply to the notice within two weeks. The Competent Authority was directed to consider and dispose of the reply following the procedure under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prematurity of the writ petition.
2. Validity of the suo motu proceedings and show cause notice.
3. Appropriate order to be passed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Prematurity of the Writ Petition:
The court considered whether the relief sought by the petitioner was premature. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice and initiation of suo motu proceedings, arguing they were illegal, whimsical, and arbitrary. The court noted that the show cause notice was under challenge, and the writ petition's maintainability was questioned on the grounds of prematurity. The court emphasized that unless a show cause notice is issued without any authority of law, it should not be quashed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of the Suo Motu Proceedings and Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner, a Notary, authenticated two notarial affidavits of marriage and a deed of agreement without verifying the age of the girl involved, which led to a complaint by the girl's mother. The court examined whether the suo motu proceedings and the show cause notice were valid. The petitioner argued that his actions were within the scope of his duties under the Notaries Act, 1952, and the Notaries Rules, 1956. The court reviewed the relevant provisions, including Section 8 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Rules, which outline the functions and duties of a Notary. The court found that the Notary must apply his mind while discharging his notarial functions and that the sanctity attached to a Notary's certificate necessitates careful verification of documents.

The court also referenced previous cases, such as the Division Bench's observation that a Notary does not have the competence to issue a marriage certificate but can verify declarations made by parties. The court concluded that the suo motu proceedings were initiated in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules, which allows for inquiries into allegations of professional or other misconduct of a Notary, either suo motu or on a complaint.

3. Appropriate Order to be Passed:
The court held that the show cause notice was not issued without jurisdiction and that the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner could not be resolved in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. The Competent Authority was directed to consider and dispose of the reply by strictly following the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The Competent Authority was instructed to follow the prescribed procedure in considering the petitioner's reply. No order as to costs was made.

---