THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.4562 OF 2006 Between : M.A. Baseer Shaik S/o. Shaik Madar, R/o. H.No.1-7-12, Old Garden, T.D. Gutta, Locality, Mahabubnagar Town, and District. …... PETITIONER And 1. The Government of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretar to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Damoder Reddy Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following. ORDER: The short grievance of the petitioner is, in action on the part of the 1st respondent in considering his application dated 20.02.2005 for appointment of notary and passing appropriate orders thereon ever since then. The petitioner states that earlier he was appointed as a notary for the areas of Mahabubnagar and Gadwal as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.339, dated 28.04.1997. As he left for USA, he could not get the certificate renewed. Subsequently his application for renewal was rejected by orders dated 21.08.2004. He challenged the said orders by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.21292 of 2004. This Court by orders dated 6.12.2004 while confirming the rejection orders, gave liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application with a direction to the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner states that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, he made an application to the 1st respondent on 20.02.2005, but the 1st respondent has kept the said application pending without passing any orders. The Notaries Act, 1952 provides for appointment of notaries. The Rules issued thereunder prescribe the qualifications required for appointment as a notary and the procedure to be followed for making such applications. Rule 8 (4A) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) provides that 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. The provisions of the Act read with the said Rule require the competent authority to consider the applications subject to the limitations contained therein. In view of the same, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Central Government has banned fresh appointments as per the provisions of Rule 8 (4A) of the Rules and the request of the petitioner was also rejected by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the same and states that the petitioner has not received any such communication rejecting his application. Having regard to the above facts and contentions, it is just and proper that in case orders have already been passed, the same should be communicated to the petitioner; and in case so far no such orders have been passed, the 1st respondent shall consider the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 7th December, 2010 Js.