Civil Writ Petition No. 2769 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 2769 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.9.2008 Shankar Lal Gupta …Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hemant Gupta, J. The petitioner, who is an Advocate enrolled in the year 1973, has challenged the appointment of respondent No.2, who is also an Advocate enrolled in the year 1986, as Notary Public in the Sirsa district. It is the case of the petitioner that his name was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, and that the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner are bound to be accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Administration of Justice. Reliance is placed Civil Writ Petition No. 2769 of 2007 2 on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.K.Batish v. State of Punjab 1997(4) Recent Civil Reports 319. In reply, it has been pointed out that the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa were not in order of merit but keeping in view the date of enrollment of the Advocates. It has been further pointed out that the Competent Authority has taken into consideration various parameters before appointing respondent No.2 as Notary Public in District Sirsa. On merits, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a resolution passed by the District Bar Association, Sirsa, on 7.2.1994, wherein a fine of Rs.11,000/- was imposed upon respondent No.2 in modification of its earlier resolution, resolving to recommend to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, for removal of name of respondent No.2. The resolution reads as under:- “Unanimously resolved that District Bar, after considering the resolution dated 12.10.1993 modifies the same and dismissal of Shri S.L.Sachdeva from the members of this Bar as well as recommendation to Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana for removal of his name from the rolls of the Bar Council, is hereby withdrawn and further resolved that Mr. S.L.Sachdeva would deposit a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Eleven Thousands only), as fine to Bar fund”. The said resolution is infact amounts to purging of any misconduct alleged against respondent No.2. Such misconduct was way Civil Writ Petition No. 2769 of 2007 3 back in the year 1994. Still further, said fact was not brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, nor to the State Government. In the judgment of this Court in K.K.Batish's case (supra) the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Notary Pubic by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, after he obtained the views of the local Judicial Officers and the Executive Magistrate of Nabha. This Court found that name of Mr. Jai Dev Parkash Chopra, Advocate, who was appointed as Notary Public was not recommended by the local Judicial Officers and he was placed below the petitioner K.K.Batish. It was, in these circumstances, found that the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is binding on the Competent Authority. But in the present case, from the averments made in the written statement, it is apparent that there is no merit determined by the Deputy Commissioner when he made recommendations. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.1 only because he was enrolled earlier than the other candidates. Once respondent No.2 is an eligible candidate, it cannot be said that the action of the State Government in appointing respondent No.2 as Notary Public suffers from any patent illegality and irregularity, which may warrant any interference of this Court in the present writ petition. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 15, 2008 “DK”