Show cause notice under Notaries law not quashed where jurisdiction existed and factual disputes required reply before authority.

A writ challenge to a show cause notice under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956 was held premature where the petitioner had an opportunity to reply and the objections raised involved disputed factual questions. The Court noted that inquiry into alleged misconduct may be initiated suo motu or on complaint under the Rules, and interference at the notice stage is not justified unless the notice is palpably without jurisdiction or authority of law. Because the proceeding was within the statutory framework and the disputes turned on facts, the notice was not quashed, and the petitioner was left to respond before the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was premature. (ii) Whether the show cause notice issued pursuant to the suo motu proceedings was liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was premature.

Analysis: A challenge to a show cause notice ordinarily does not merit interference at the threshold unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without authority of law or without jurisdiction. The notice in question was issued under the statutory framework governing misconduct proceedings against a Notary, and the petitioner had an opportunity to place his explanation before the competent authority. The dispute also turned on factual matters relating to verification of age and the circumstances in which the affidavits were authenticated.

Conclusion: The challenge was premature and did not warrant interference at the notice stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice issued pursuant to the suo motu proceedings was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Rule 11(8) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 confer notarial functions, but they also require proper application of mind in the discharge of those functions. Rule 13 and Rule 13(4-A) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 permit inquiry into allegations of misconduct suo motu or on complaint. The Court found no demonstrated absence of jurisdiction in initiating the proceeding, and the petitioner's objections involved disputed factual questions that were inappropriate for determination in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was left to answer the statutory notice before the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice issued under a valid statutory inquiry framework will not be quashed in writ jurisdiction unless it is palpably without jurisdiction or authority of law, especially where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact.

---