IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26108 of 2006(G)
1. E.M.KUNJUMONE, ADVOCATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 26108, 29421 OF 2006
and 30556 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The issues which arise for consideration in these cases are
similar, especially going by the stand taken by the Government in
these cases. But since directions to be issued may not be common,
I will take up each one of these cases separately apart from dealing
with the common contentions. The common issue which arises is
one relating to the appointment of the petitioners herein as Notaries
under Notaries (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2007. In so far as WPC
Nos.30556/08 and 26108/06 are concerned, the applications filed by
the respective petitioners for appointment as Notaries have been
rejected on the ground that the total number of Notaries practicing in
the State exceeds the permitted number as specified in the Rules.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC 30556/08 brings
to my notice the Notaries (Fourth amendment) Rules, 2007 and the
amendment to the Schedule to the Rules which shows that the
number of Notaries in the State of Kerala has been increased from
563 to 675. The counter affidavit filed by the Government shows the
W.P.(C)Nos.26108,29421 of 2006
and 30556 OF 2008
-:2:-
only reason for rejecting the petitioners’ application for appointing
them as Notary is that the total number of Notaries practicing in the
State at present is in excess of 563 which was the permissible
number at the point of time. Rules have been amended and the
number has been increased from 563 to 675. The applications filed
by the petitioners in these cases may be reconsidered and decision
taken in accordance with law. In the result, WPC 30556/08 is
disposed of directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s
application within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. It is made clear that the respondents shall follow the
priority list drawn up with reference to the date on which the
individual application for appointment as Notary has been received
by the Government.
3. WPC 26108/08 is disposed of directing the respondent to
pass orders on the petitioner’s application, Ext.P1, for appointment
as a Notary and issue certificate of practice to him, if he is found to
be eligible for appointment as a Notary. Necessary orders may be
passed in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C)Nos.26108,29421 of 2006
and 30556 OF 2008
-:3:-
4. In WPC 29421/06, the petitioner has a case that he was
appointed as Notary but certificate of practice has not been issued.
The stand taken by the Government is that there is no final disposal
of his application and certificate has not been issued because the
total number of notaries practicing were in excess of the permitted
number. The discussion undertaken above applies to the case of the
petitioner also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing
the 1st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s application for
appointment as Notary and issue a certificate of practice if he is
otherwise eligible. This shall be done within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(V. GIRI, JUDGE)
ttb