Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Pooja Khanna on 4 August, 2026
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 04.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010351852026
+ LPA 598/2026 & CM APPL. 50671/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh and Ms. Shipra
Shukla, Advocates.
versus
POOJA KHANNA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.A. Inayti and Mr. Soaib Khan,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 50672/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 50673/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellants seeking
condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the accompanying Appeal.
4. Having perused the averments made in the Application seeking
condonation of delay and having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 1 of 18
14:45:08
the Application is allowed. The delay of 99 days in filing the accompanying
Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 598/2026
6. Heard Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Counsel representing the
Appellants and Mr. M.A. Inayti, learned Counsel representing the sole
Respondent.
7. By instituting the proceedings of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the
Appellant – Union of India seeks to challenge the order dated 16.03.2026
(“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
5091/2025 (“Writ Petition”), which was filed by the Respondent, wherein
the Writ Petition has been disposed of with certain directions.
8. The learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, has
directed the Appellant to consider the Respondent’s pending application for
issuance of Notary Practice Certificate / Certificate of Practice (“CoP”) and
to take a final decision. The Impugned Order further observes that pendency
of a criminal case should not be a reason to deny the issuance of CoP. The
learned Single Judge also observes in the Impugned Order that if there is any
other impediment as per the Appellant in granting the CoP to the
Respondent, the Appellant shall be at liberty to consider the same in
accordance with law.
9. The facts leading to filing of the instant intra court Appeal are as
under:
10. Pursuant to the process initiated by the Appellant for appointment of
Public Notaries, the Respondent, vide notice dated 15.03.2024
(“Appointment Notice”), was intimated that the Appellant had decided to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 2 of 18
14:45:08
provisionally appoint her, subject to verification of her eligibility and
verification of documents and payment of prescribed fee.
11. The Appointment Notice also informed the Respondent as also other
applicants that they have to submit certain documents including an affidavit
duly attested by 1st Class Magistrate containing depositions that the
applicant is neither a Notary already appointed, that no criminal case /
disciplinary proceedings are pending or initiated, that the applicant is not an
undischarged insolvent and that the applicant has not been convicted by any
Court of Law for an offence involving moral turpitude.
12. The Appointment Notice required the Respondent and all other such
candidates to furnish the documents by 16.04.2024.
13. Pursuant to the Appointment Notice, the Respondent is said to have
submitted the requisite documents including the affidavit dated 12.04.2024
(“Affidavit”), wherein it was inter alia stated by the Respondent that “That
cr. case bearing no-53797/2016 was trial against me in the Hon’ble court
of Sh. Dev. Saroha, Patiala House court which was already dispose-off /
discharged on 18/08/2022 (Photocopy are Enclosed) and the revision was
filed on 15/12/2022 which was pending for order, whenever I got the final
decision from the court, I will submitted the same in the concern
authority.”
14. The said assertion in Paragraph No. 2 of the Affidavit appears to have
been made by the Respondent in view of a criminal case, which was
instituted against her and certain other accused persons under Section
419/420/467/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Trial Court
vide order dated 18.08.2022 (“Discharge Order”) discharged the
Respondent on certain grounds, however, the Discharge Order was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 3 of 18
14:45:08
challenged in a revision petition before the learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge, namely, Cr. Rev. No. 531/2022 (“Revision Petition”).
15. The learned Revisional Court, vide order dated 06.04.2024
(“Revisional Order”), set aside the Discharge Order passed by the learned
Trial Court and remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court to
consider all relevant material on record for the purposes of framing charge
and record the findings afresh.
16. The Affidavit by the Respondent, pursuant to the Appointment Notice
was submitted on 12.04.2024, however, a perusal of Paragraph No. 2 of the
Affidavit reveals that no information regarding decision on the Revision
Petition vide the Order dated 06.04.2024 was disclosed by the Respondent in
the Affidavit; rather what all was stated by the Respondent was that the
Revision Petition was reserved for orders, though the orders were already
pronounced on 06.04.2024.
17. Even after the issuance of the Appointment Notice, when the
Respondent was not being issued the Certificate of Practice (CoP) and was
not being enrolled in the Register of Notaries, the Respondent instituted the
underlying Writ Petition, which has been disposed of by the Impugned
Order by the learned Single Judge with certain directions and observations.
It is this order dated 16.03.2026, which is under challenge herein before us
in this Appeal.
18. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that it was a
case where the Respondent was guilty of suppression of facts inasmuch as
that she, while submitting the Affidavit, pursuant to the Appointment
Notice, did not deliberately disclose the Revisional Order passed by the
learned Revisional Court, whereby the Discharge Order of the learned Trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 4 of 18
14:45:08
Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial
Court. Further submission on behalf of the Appellants is that the Revisional
Order was well within the knowledge of the Respondent when she filed the
Affidavit and, therefore, non-disclosure of the Revisional Order of the
Revisional Court amounts to suppression of material facts and on that count,
the CoP was not issued to her; neither was her name included in the Register
of Notaries.
19. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants
has also argued that it is not only that the Respondent is guilty of
suppression of facts by not disclosing complete information while filing the
Affidavit but also that considering the nature of allegations in respect of
which she is facing trial, it would not be appropriate for the Appellant to
issue the CoP and include her name in the Register of Notaries.
20. In this regard, it has been submitted that the allegation on the basis of
which criminal trial is going on against the Respondent is in relation to
certain functions, which are stated to have been performed by her, which
functions are legally to be performed by a Public Notary. It is stated that she
performed certain functions of Public Notary, though she was not appointed;
neither was she registered or was having a CoP as Notary.
21. In the wake of the said allegations, it has been stated by learned
Counsel for the Appellants that it is impermissible to issue CoP to such an
applicant for the reason that allegations reflect upon the integrity of the
Respondent and it would not be in the fitness of things to issue CoP to the
Respondent facing such allegations in the learned Trial Court.
22. Opposing the prayers made in this intra court Appeal, Mr. M.A.
Inayti, learned Counsel representing the Respondent has, however, stated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 5 of 18
14:45:08
that at the time when the Affidavit was filed by the Respondent, she had no
knowledge of the final outcome of the learned Revisional Court’s decision,
which though is said to be dated 06.04.2024, however, it was not made
known to her by the time she filed the Affidavit.
23. Learned Counsel representing the Respondent has also argued that
considering the aforesaid factual position in the Affidavit, the Respondent
had clearly stated that she was tried in criminal case bearing No. 5397/2016,
wherein she was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide the Discharge
Order and further that Revision Petition was filed on 15.12.2022, which was
pending for orders.
24. According to learned Counsel representing the Respondent, on the
date of furnishing the Affidavit, the Respondent had clearly indicated that
the Revision Petition was pending for orders, however, since the Revisional
Order was not in her knowledge or notice, she did not mention about the
outcome of the Revision Petition and, accordingly, had undertaken that
whenever the Revision Petition is finally decided, intimation shall be given
to the Appellants of the said decision.
25. In this view of the matter, submission of learned Counsel representing
the Respondent is that while filing the Affidavit, there has not been any
suppression of facts: much less any material fact and, therefore, on this
count, the action on the part of the Appellants in denying issuance of the
CoP and non-inclusion of her name in the Register of Notaries is absolutely
arbitrary and without any plausible basis.
26. So far as the submission made by learned Counsel representing the
Appellants that considering the pendency of the criminal trial, the CoP
cannot be issued, learned Counsel representing the Respondent has argued
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 6 of 18
14:45:08
that mere pendency of a criminal trial is not a disqualification for being
appointed as Notary in terms of the provisions contained in The Notaries
Act, 1952 (“Act”) and unless and until she is proved guilty in a duly
conducted criminal trial, denial to her of the CoP cannot be justified.
27. Drawing our attention to Section 15 of the Act, which empowers the
Central Government to make rules, which are to be placed before each
House of Parliament, it has been stated that pursuant to the said rule making
power, the Central Government has made The Notaries Rules, 1956
(“Rules”), wherein the qualification for appointment as Notary is prescribed
in Rule 3, which nowhere states that pendency of a criminal trial shall be a
disqualification and, therefore, in absence of any such prescription in the
Rules that pendency of a criminal trial shall be a disqualification for
appointment as Notary, the stance taken in this regard by the Appellant is
not justified.
28. Our attention has also been drawn by learned Counsel representing
the Respondent to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, wherein it has
been clearly provided that removal from the Register of Notaries maintained
by the Central Government can be made only if there is a conviction of a
Notary by any Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. It has been
stated that if in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act,
mere pendency of a criminal trial cannot be a basis of removal, denial of
issuance of CoP on the said ground cannot be justified.
29. Mr. M.A. Inayti, learned Counsel representing the Respondent has
also submitted that pursuant to an e-mail date 14.01.2025 from the
Appellant, the Respondent submitted her documents online on 24.01.2025
deposing all the relevant information about the Revisional Order passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 7 of 18
14:45:08
the learned Revisional Court and, therefore, holding the Respondent guilty
of suppression of facts and based on such ground, non-issuance of CoP
cannot be justified.
30. We have considered the respective submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the Parties and have also perused the records available before us
in this Appeal.
31. In terms of Section 3 of the Act, power to appoint Public Notaries is
vested in the Central Government for the whole or any part of India and in
State Government for the whole or any part of the State. Section 4 of the Act
requires the Central Government and the State Governments to maintain
Register of Notaries so appointed, which shall include various particulars of
the Notaries.
32. Section 5 of the Act provides that every Notary, who intends to
practise, shall be entitled to have his name entered in the Register
maintained by the Government under Section 4 of the Act on payment of the
prescribed fee. Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Act provides that the
Government appointing the Notary may, on receipt of the application and
the prescribed fee, renew the CoP of any Notary for a period of five years at
a time. Section 9 of the Act provides that no person will be entitled to
practise as a Notary or to do any notarial act under the official seal of a
Notary unless he holds a CoP in force issued to him under Section 5 of the
Act.
33. Section 10 of the Act is the provision, which vests in the Government
appointing the Notary power to remove a Notary from the Register
maintained by it on certain grounds and one of the grounds contained in
Section 10 of the Act is that if he has been found to be guilty of professional
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 8 of 18
14:45:08
or other misconduct upon enquiry, in the opinion of the Government, which
renders him unfit to practise a Notary. It also provides that name of a Notary
can be removed from the Register under Section 10 if he is convicted by any
Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. Section 10 of the Act is
abstracted hereunder:
“10. Removal of names from Register.-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) makes a request to that effect; or
(b) has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or
(c) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(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 his unfit to practise as a notary;
[(e) is convicted by any court for an offence involving moral
turpitude; or
(f) does not get his certificate of practice renewed.]”
34. Section 12 of the Act contains a penal provision, according to which,
if any person is found representing himself falsely that he is a Notary
without being appointed as such or is found practising as a Notary in
contravention of Section 9 of the Act, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term, which may extend to one year or with fine or with
both. As already observed above, Section 15 of the Act empowers the
Central Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the object
of the said Act.
35. Rule 3 of the Rules provides qualification for appointment as Notary,
which reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 9 of 18
14:45:08
“3. Qualifications for appointment as a notary.-No person shall be
eligible for appointment as a notary unless on the date of the
application for such appointment-
(a) a person had been practising at least for ten years, or
(aa) a person belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes had been practising at least for seven years,
or(ab) a woman who had been practising at least for seven years, as a
legal practitioner, or(ac) a person with benchmark disability as defined in clause (r) of
section 2 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of
2016), who has been practicing for at least seven years, as a legal
practitioner;
(b) he had been a member of the Indian Legal Service under the
Central Government, or
(c) he had been at least for ten years,-
(i) a member of Judicial Service; or
(ii) held an office under the Central Government or a State
Government requiring special knowledge of law after enrolment
as an advocate; or
(iii) held an office in the department of Judge Advocate General
or in the legal department of the armed forces.”
36. As per the scheme of the Rules read with the provisions of the Act, a
person intending to be appointed as a Notary has to make an application
under Rule 4 of the Rules for the appointment, whereupon in terms of the
provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, the Competent Authority is mandated to
examine every such application and if the Competent Authority is satisfied
that the application is complete in all respects, it shall make
recommendation in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules to the appropriate
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 10 of 18
14:45:08
Government recommending that the applicant may be allowed to appear
before the Interview Board.
37. We may also note that if the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules
are read together, the Competent Authority is empowered to hold such
enquiry as may be thought fit by it before making the recommendation to the
Central Government that the applicant may be allowed to appear before the
Interview Board.
38. Rule 7A of the Rules constitutes an Interview Board. Once the
recommendations of the Interview Board are received, the Government, in
terms of Rule 8 of the Rules, considers the recommendation for appointment
and, accordingly, application for appointment may be allowed or it can be
rejected as well. Rule 8 of the Rules is abstracted herein below:
“8. Appointment of a notary.- (1) On receipt of the recommendations
of the interview board, the appropriate Government shall consider
the recommendation and shall–
(a) allow the application in respect of the whole of the area to
which it relates; or
(b) allow the application in respect of any part of the area to
which it relates; or
(c) reject the application,
and shall also make such orders as the Government thinks fit
regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the cost of
the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne.
(2) An applicant shall be informed of every order passed by the
appropriate Government under sub-rule (1).
(3) Any applicant whose application has been rejected for allowed
in respect of only a part of the area to which it relates or against
whom an order as to cost has been made under subrule (1) may,
within sixty days of the date of the order apply to the appropriate
Government for reviewing the order and that Government may, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 11 of 18
14:45:08
making such further inquiry as it thinks fit pass such order as it
considers necessary.
(4) Where the application is allowed, the appropriate Government
shall appoint the applicant as a notary and direct his name to be
entered in the Register of Notaries maintained by that Government
under section 4 of the Act and issue to him a certificate on payment
of prescribed fees authorizing him to practise in the area to which
the application relates or in such part thereof as the appropriate
Government may specify in the certificate, as a notary for a period
of five years from the date on which the certificate is issued to him.
(4A) The appropriate Government may on and after the ninth day of
May, 2001, appoint notaries in a State or Union territory, as the
case may be, not exceeding the number of notaries specified in the
Schedule: Provided that the number of notaries whose certificate of
practice has been renewed under subsection (2) of section 5 of the
Act shall be included in the total number of notaries appointed for
the purpose of counting the total number of notaries specified in the
Schedule:
Provided further that if in a State or Union territory the number of
notaries appointed before the ninth day of May 2001, exceeds the
number of notaries specified in the Schedule, such notaries shall
continue to be so appointed in that State or Union territory, as the
case may be:
Provided also that in case, request for enhancement of maximum
number of notaries under column (3) of the Schedule is received
from Union Territory or the State concerned, the same shall be
considered as per the following criteria:–
(a) if there is an increase in the population of the concerned
State or the Union Territory;
(b) if there is increase in the number of districts or tehsil or
taluka of the concerned State or Union Territory.
(5) The Register of Notaries shall be in Form IIA and the certificate
of practice shall be in Form IIB.”
39. If we consider the scheme of the Act read with Rules, what we find is
that every application seeking appointment as a Notary is to be scrutinised
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 12 of 18
14:45:08
first by the Competent Authority and if the Competent Authority is satisfied
that the application is complete in all respects, a recommendation is made
for interview by the Interview Board constituted under Rule 7A of the Rules.
Once the Interview Board completes its task, it makes a recommendation to
the Central Government, whereupon under Rule 8 of the Rules, the Central
Government appoints the Notaries, however, merely because a
recommendation by the Interview Board has been made, it is not mandatory
for the Central Government to make appointment of a Notary in all cases.
40. The recommendation made by the Interview Board, in terms of Rule 8
of the Rules are to be considered, and in this process of consideration, the
Government is empowered to pass such orders as may thought fit. It is
empowered under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Rules even to reject the application for
appointment.
41. So far as the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Act are
concerned, we may note that the said provisions do not have any application
so far as the facts of the instant case are concerned for the reason that the
same applies in case of removal of the name of a Notary from the Register
of Notaries. The said provision will have no application also for the reason
that though by the Appointment Notice, the Respondent was intimated about
her provisional appointment, however, the CoP and inclusion of her name as
Notary in the Register of Notaries in terms of Sections 5 and 4 of the Act,
respectively had not been done. Accordingly, any provision available in
Section 10 of the Act, in our opinion, does not have any application so far as
the issue, which has emerged in this Appeal is concerned.
42. It is rather a case, where after issuing the Appointment Notice, the
Respondent has not been issued the CoP as per Section 5 of the Act, neither
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 13 of 18
14:45:08
her name has been registered in the Register of Notaries maintained as per
Section 4 of the Act.
43. The question for our consideration in the facts and circumstances, as
discussed above, thus is, as to whether the Respondent is entitled to get a
CoP issued and also get her name entered in the Register of Notaries in
terms of Section 5 and 4 of the Act, respectively. We have already noticed
the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, which is in relation to the appointment
of a Notary on the recommendation made by the Interview Board constituted
in Rule 7A of the Rules. We have also already noticed that on receipt of the
recommendation by the Interview Board, it is not incumbent upon the
Government – Appellant to appoint every Notary. The Government has been
vested with the discretion of even rejecting the application.
44. We may now examine the reason being given by the Appellant for not
issuing the CoP and not registering the Respondent in the Register of
Notaries maintained under Section 4 of the Act.
45. The submission made on behalf of the Respondent that on the date of
filing of the Affidavit, i.e., on 12.04.2024 she was not aware of the
Revisional Order, is yet to be considered by the Appellant. There is no
conscious decision on record in this regard, which has been taken by the
Appellant denying the issuance of the CoP on the alleged ground of
suppression of facts while furnishing the Affidavit by the Respondent.
46. We may also note that pursuant to the e-mail dated 14.01.2025,
certain other documents were also furnished by the Respondent by means of
a communication dated 24.01.2025. Accordingly, in absence of any decision
by the Appellant on the issue as to whether the Respondent is guilty of
suppression of facts, we refrain ourselves from recording any finding. We do
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 14 of 18
14:45:08
not intend to record any finding also in the wake of the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order, whereby the Appellant has
been directed to consider the prayer of the Respondent for issuance of CoP
and take a decision. Therefore, we leave this issue at that.
47. As regards the ground taken by the Appellant that the Respondent
cannot be issued the CoP, neither can her name be included in the Register
of Notaries on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, it is noticeable
that the learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, has though
directed the Appellant to consider the prayer of the Respondent and take a
final decision, however, in the same breath, it has been observed that
pendency of criminal case should not be a reason to deny issuance of a CoP.
48. With all due respect, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement of
such observation made by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order,
where it has been observed that pendency of a criminal case should not be a
reason to deny issuance of a CoP. As to whether pendency of a criminal case
can be a ground for not issuing or issuing a CoP, it is a function which ought
to be left to the Government for the reason that under Rule 8 of the Rules,
the Government is empowered to allow the application on the
recommendation made by the Interview Board, however, it is also
empowered to reject the same.
49. If any authority or power has been vested with the Government for
rejection of the application, it is the Government which should exercise its
statutory discretion in this regard, of course, such rejection should bear some
plausible reason.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 15 of 18
14:45:08
50. So far as the submission made by learned Counsel representing the
Respondent that pendency of a criminal trial has not been prescribed as a
disqualification in the Rules for appointment of Public Notary, we may only
observe that pendency of a criminal case, depending on the nature of
allegations and charges, can be a ground for considering as to whether an
application for appointment is to be allowed under Rule 8 of the Rules after
the recommendation is made by the Interview Board constituted under
Section 7A of the Act. After all antecedent of any applicant for appointment
as Public Notary is a relevant factor which should weigh in the mind of the
competent authority while considering any such appointment.
51. In our opinion, pendency of a criminal trial, depending on the nature
on which the trial has commenced, is a relevant factor, which ought to be
taken into account by the Appellant for taking a decision both at the time of
appointment as also at the time of issuance of CoP and entering the name in
the Register of Notaries maintained under Section 4 of the Act. There may
be situations, where mere allegations may cause embarrassment to the
Government in case appointment of a Notary is made, however, all that
depends on the nature and seriousness of the allegations on the basis of
which applicant is facing the criminal trial.
52. The reason given by learned Single Judge for making the observation
that pendency of a criminal trial should not be a ground to deny issuance of
CoP is based on the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, which, as already
observed, will have no application in the facts of the present case for the
reason that the same applies in a situation where there is any consideration
for the removal of name from the Register of Notaries.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 16 of 18
14:45:08
53. It is not a case where the name of the Respondent is sought to be
removed from the Register of Notaries, rather it is a case where after the
Appointment Notice was issued, the Respondent is to be issued the CoP and
her name is to be entered in the Register of Notaries.
54. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the instant Appeal with the
following directions:
i. In terms of the Impugned Order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the Appellant shall consider the prayer of the Respondent
for issuance of CoP and to enter her name in the Register of
Notaries by taking a final decision within a period of six weeks
from today.
ii. The Respondent will have an opportunity to represent her case
in writing before the Appellant, which shall be availed by her
within a period of 10 days from today, by making a
representation in writing.
iii. On receipt of such representation, the Competent Authority of
the Appellant shall take an informed decision by passing a
reasoned order giving reasons for such decision.
iv. The decision under this Order on the prayer of the Respondent
shall be taken by the Competent Authority of the Appellant
without being influenced by the observations made in Paragraph
No. 12(ii) of the Impugned Order.
v. The Impugned Order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 17 of 18
14:45:08
55. The Appeal, thus, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
Application also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TEJAS KARIA, J
AUGUST 4, 2026/sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:07.08.2026 LPA 598/2026 Page 18 of 18
14:45:08
