THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.8595 of 2002 15.10.2009 Between: Mohammad Aarif, S/o.Late Sheik Fareed … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Regn and Mdla) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.8595 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is practising Advocate. When he filed writ petition he had about 15 years of standing. He applied to respondents for being appointed as Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952, and the Notaries Rules, 1956. It is his case that second respondent sent the proposal on 25.6.2001 recommending to appoint petitioner as Notary and the Government issued memo accepting the proposal on 20.7.2001, but the certificate of practice was not given to him. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking appropriate relief. The Deputy Inspector General (Law) in the Office of second respondent, filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the Government of India amended Notary Rules 1956 and the second amendment inserting sub-rule (4A) in Rule 8 of Notaries Rules, came into force on 09.5.2001. As per the said Rule, number of appointments cannot exceed the number of Notaries prescribed in the schedule, which was also inserted by second amendment to Rules. Maximum number of Notaries who were appointed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is fixed at 575 whereas the State Government had already appointed 1256 Notaries. Therefore the number fixed has been exceeded. In view of this, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo dated 13.11.2001 took a policy decision not to entertain recommendations for fresh appointment of Notaries. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in A.Sambi Reddy v Government of A.P.[1]. Learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner applied on 16.12.2000, long prior to second amendment, and therefore, for the delay on the part of second respondent and again for the delay on the part of first respondent, petitioner cannot be penalized. This contention is opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader. In A.Sambi Reddy (supra), petitioner had made application on 08.9.2000 for appointment as Notary. The competent authority sent proposal on 26.6.2001 i.e., after coming into force of second amendment and the Government accepted the same on 10.7.2001. When his certificate of practice was not issued, writ petition was filed placing reliance on another decision of this Court in Parchuri Kishore v Governmentof A.P.[2]. This Court dismissed the said writ petition observing as follows. A plain reading of the Rule leaves no doubt that the procedure for appointment of a ‘Notary’ under Section 3 and entering his name in the register under Section 4 comes to an end the movement the competent authority appointed under Rule 4 makes recommendation under Rule 7(1) and (2) which is binding on the government. The moment the Government accepts the proposal of the competent authority, in this case, the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. There is a conclusive decision and what is to be followed with reference to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 is mere ministerial act i.e. a formal order appointing an applicant as Notary and to enter the name in the Register of Notaries is to be made. Admittedly, the Rules were notified in the gazette dated 10.5.2001 and by reason of Rule 4A as inserted by the second amendment Rules, 2001, the appropriate Government including the State Government is barred from making any appointment exceeding the number of notaries specified in the schedule, in this case, 575. This legal position is not denied by Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for petitioner. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent made a recommenation on 26.6.2001 whose proposal to appoint the petitioner as a notary was accepted by the 1st respondent on 10.7.2001. Therefore, it is obvious that the Government of Andhra Pradesh could have issued an appointment order to the petitioner appointing him as a ‘Notary’ in the teeth of Rule 4A as amended by the second amendment Rules, 2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment delivered by me in PARCHURI KISHORE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., 2002 (2) ALD 627. In that case, the Government had issued a Memo on 5.7.2001 accepting the proposal to appoint the petitioner therein whereas the amendment came into force on 9.5.2001. I held that the amendment has no application to the appointments already made. In this case, the proposal to appoint the petitioner was accepted on 10.7.2001. Therefore, Rule 4A acts as a bar for issuing the appointment order. The facts in this case are almost similar to the facts in A.Sambi Reddy (supra). Therefore there is force in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that even if the recommendation is made by second respondent and the same is accepted by first respondent, as both the events are after coming into force of second amendment, petitioner cannot be said to have any enforceable right. The writ petition therefore cannot be accepted. The writ petition, for the above reasons, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) October 15, 2009 YS [1] 2002(3) ALD 424 [2] 2002(2) ALD 627