IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7403 of 2002 Between: Takur Gopi Kishan Singh … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.Chandra Sekhar Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Notary to enable him to function as such at Bellampally of Adilabad District and to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing him even after completion of enquiry envisaged under the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short “the Rules”), as illegal. The petitioner had been a practicing Advocate. He applied for his appointment as Notary under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. Respondent No.3, who is the competent authority, got a notice published under Rule 6(2)(a) in the official Gazette part-II dated 8-3-2001 inviting objections from the interested persons. In the mean time, the provisions of the Rules were amended with effect from 9-5-2001 by introduction of sub-Rule (4A) to Rule 8, according to which the maximum number of 575 notaries is fixed for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, who was not appointed as a Notary, after the said Gazette publication, filed the present Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that after the notification was published as a part of preliminary action under Section 6, no appointment order was issued by the competent authority under Rule 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Inspector General (F) in the office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, it is stated that since the number of notaries fixed by the amended rule had been far exceeded with the appointment of 1256 Notaries as against 575 Notaries, the petitioner has not been appointed. At the hearing, Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in pursuance of the Gazette notification calling for objections and the order passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner paid the fee of Rs.1,000/- under Rule 8(4) and, hence, the amended rule has no application to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, did not show that any order was passed under Section 8(4) of the Act, nor a copy of the same has been filed along with the Writ Petition. A perusal of the challan shows that on 21-7-2001 the petitioner obtained the same, whereas the rule was amended on 9-5-2001. In the absence of an order appointing the petitioner as a Notary, payment of the fee cannot be countenanced. Until and unless the petitioner has been appointed as a Notary, it is not permissible for him to say that the amended rule has no application to his case because as on the date of coming into force of the amendment, the right of the petitioner has not got crystallized. Therefore, it was permissible for the respondents to exercise their discretion not to appoint the petitioner by applying the amended rule, which placed ceiling on the number of Notaries to be appointed in the State. Since, admittedly, the number of Notaries appointed and functioning in the State far too exceeded the ceiling limit placed by the amendment, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in not appointing the petitioner as a Notary. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Parchuri Kishore Vs. Government of A.P – 2002(2) ALD 627. In the said case, much before the amendment was made, the petitioner therein was appointed as a Notary on 16-12- 2000 itself. Therefore, the said judgment, which was based on the facts of that case, is not of any avail to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:14-07-2008 MNR