LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Call detail record

Page no : 3

Kumar Doab (FIN)     09 April 2018

Ref your threads...

As far as OP and counsels of OP are concerned they may persist that said notarized document was given to you and facts shared…

Have you tendered the said document in court of law!

What exactly you want to achieve from the stamp paper?

Sourabh   09 April 2018

They have submitted the notary divorce paper as per Muslim law by verbal talak And claims that she was already divorced earlier So I want to check the entry of the notary at which date it was purchased I am 100% sure that it was purchased on back date to show the divorce

Kumar Doab (FIN)     09 April 2018

GO ahead..                                  

Sourabh   09 April 2018

How to proceed please guide me Can I file rti for stamp paper record and to which department in Uttar pradesh

Sourabh   09 April 2018

How to proceed please guide me Can I file rti for stamp paper record and to which department in Uttar pradesh

Kumar Doab (FIN)     09 April 2018

If you are in CA office or are CA ask fellow colleagues in UP.

Or start by asking in jurisdictional O/o Tehsildar....

Kumar Doab (FIN)     11 April 2018

The local inquiry in person could have helped you.

The Legal Affairs Department of Union of India, State Govt appointed Notary..

The govt appointing Notary acts in pertaining matters …  and appoints the Inspecting officer say; Dist Judge..or officer appointed by him/her..

Inquire locally.


Check at;


Kumar Doab (FIN)     11 April 2018

Go thru;

Central Government Act

The Notaries Act, 1952

Go thru Sec;8,10..





Also go thru;

Central Information Commission

Mrvijay Prakash Gupta vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 17 June, 2015




Appellant: Harish Raju,

Respondent: Central Public Information Officer M/o, Law & Justice,

4. The respondent stated that they could not trace the records relating to the sought for information. In fact, there are about 13,500 Notaries in the country. They file their annual return to the Ministry of Law & Justice. Records are just kept in bundles and it is difficult to retrieve information from them. However, they will call for the records from the concerned Notary, and if available, it will be provided to the appellant.




7. The Commission can not accept the claim for unavailability of the said information. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO to show­cause as to why penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The explanation for the same should be given within 21 days from the date receipt of this order. 


Kumar Doab (FIN)     11 April 2018

The CPIO stated that all the available records have been provided to the appellant. She also stated that some of the old records were eaten by the termite and the same could not be provided. 

6.     The Public authority and their authorised agent, notary, an advocate with substantive experience are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack and (iii) partially damaged records. Termite attack, as claimed by the notary republic, need to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(1)(a) and (b) imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.  It was not done so far, hence there is a genuine doubt that registers might have been deliberately caused to disappear and being covered up blaming termite.  If it is true they should show the remains of the termite eaten records. 


21.   This being a glaring example of poor record maintenance leading to “inaccess”, it is difficult for Commission to ignore this serious negligence, lethargy and complacence.   The Commission, hence, takes serious note of negligence on part of Ms. Meena Sharma, the Notary and advocate in preservation of public record, not providing information to the appellant and not complying with order of Commission.   The Commission imposes penalty of  Rs. 25,000/­ against Ms. Meena Sharma.  



Kumar Doab (FIN)     11 April 2018

Also go thru;


Another querist may be acting in Notary matter.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register