IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6247 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. SAJAN, S/O.LATE O.K. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44, ADVOCATE, THALASSERY, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEEDU, THIRUVANGAD, THALLASSERY-670 103. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE, SRI.P.PRIJITH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY, LAW (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 6247/2009-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03/03/2006 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LIST OF FOUR ADVOCATES. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/11/2008 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE WP(C) NO. 29421/06 WITHOUT EXTS. FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/02/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE SUPERINTEDNENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/02/2009 ADDRESSED TO SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.6247 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Notary Public. That appointment was finalised by the drawing up of a certificate of practice. However, that certificate was not issued since there was some controversy as to the total number of Notaries who are enrolled in the State of Kerala. Pending that, there was an amendment by which the total number of Notaries were increased. On the basis of that, this Court had directed that appointment could not be cancelled. But, in the interregnum, in his anxiety of having become a Notary, the petitioner allegedly put up a board stating that he is a Notary. But that by itself does not amount to his acting or practising as a Notary. It is only an attempt to exhibit himself as a Notary. Ext.P6, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as a Notary solely on the ground that he practised as a Notary without lawful certification is, on the totality of the facts and circumstances, unreasonable. The WPC.6247/09 2 rule does not intend to visit such an action with cancellation of enrollment as Notary. Therefore, Ext.P6 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.31/03.