IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9833 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSE SEBASTIAN,ADVOCATE,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN,R/AT MYTHRI,VELLARIKUNDU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., BY ADV. MR. KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY,NOTARY CELL, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9833 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P2 issued by the Ministry of Department of Legal Affairs on 24.01.2011, whereby th application preferred by the petitioner for appointment as 'Notary' had been turned down stating that the petitioner had to forward the application through the concerned District Judge or the Presiding Officer of the Court or Tribunal where he practises as an advocate, in view of the amendment of the relevant Rules. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application preferred by the petitioner was much before the amendment of the rules concerned, as clearly discernible from Ext.P2 itself. In fact, the said application was preferred on 20.07.2004 and the concerned respondent took nearly five years to have it dealt with by issuing Ext. P2 , i.e., after amendment of W.P.(C) No. 9833 OF 2011 2 the relevant rules , which in turn is under challenge . 3. The learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submits that consideration of the application happened to be delayed because of various reasons and that the petitioner has to submit fresh application in tune with the new rules which have come into force with effect from 24.02.2009. 4. Though it is true that the petitioner had preferred application in July 2004, the petitioner had not chosen to approach this Court till rejection of the application by Ext.P2. As on date, the application has to be considered in accordance with the relevant rules and no writ of mandamus can be issued to the concerned respondent to consider the application in the light of the obsolete rules , which are no longer in force. 5. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter by filing a proper application, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned respondent, also taking note of the fact that the W.P.(C) No. 9833 OF 2011 3 petitioner had filed application way back in 2004 and there was considerable delay on the part of the respondents in having acted upon the same. Appropriate orders shall be passed, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, if the application is in order in all other respects. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk