IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38497 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE DOMINIC,S/O.LATE V.D.GEORGE, 56 YEARS,VARAVUKALAYIL HOUSE, POONJAR PO, THEKKEKARA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KEALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LAW DEPARTMENT,REP.BY LAW SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.38497 OF 2010(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Prayers sought in this writ petition are the following; “1. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to all for the records leading to the above case and directing the 2nd respondent to take safe custody of the notary register and receipt book dated 13.1.2006 from the notary public, Pala. 2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext.P7 representation and direct the 2nd respondent to send the notary register and receipt book dated 13.1.2006 contained the signature of testator to scrutinize the genuine of the signature of the petitioners' father with the original signature of the testator put in the SRO, Poonjar which are kept in Sub Court, Pala in O.S.No.17/2006.” These prayers are made on the basis that the additional 3rd respondent has attested Ext.P2 Will which is alleged to be a fabricated document. However, as rightly pointed out in Ext.P6, WPC.No. 38497/2010 :2 : there is no power conferred on the 2nd respondent to seize any record maintained by the Notary Public, much less to send the notary register and receipt book, for examination of the genuineness of the signature or other entries in the document. If that be so, in the absence of a statutory provision enabling the 2nd respondent to do what is sought for by the petitioner, this court will not be justified in issuing any direction to the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/