IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 121 of 2008(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ A.J.R.VARGHESE, ADVOCATE, VYAPARA BHAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, CHENDAMANGALAM JUNCTION, N.PARAVUR-683 513. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, LAW (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 121 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 2, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had submitted an application for appointment as a Notary. By the time the application was made by the petitioner, Rule 8(4)(a) of the Notaries Rules was inserted in the statute and this rule provided that the appropriate Government may, on and after the ninth day of May 2001, appoint notaries in State or Union Territory, as the case may be, not exceeding the number of notaries specified in the schedule. In so far as Kerala is concerned, it is not in dispute that the present maximum number of notaries to be appointed by the State Government is 563. It is in view of this and as there are already 563 notaries in place, his application was rejected by the competent authority viz. the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3. It is challenging Ext.P3 and for directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application afresh that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Impugning Ext.P3 learned counsel for the petitioner WP(C) 121/2008 Page numbers contended that the 2nd respondent is incompetent to reject his application. This contention is raised placing reliance on Rule 6 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. In terms of this rule, according to learned counsel, the competent authority can only examine every application received by him and if he is satisfied that the applicant does not possess the qualifications specified in Rule 3 or that any previous application of the applicant for appointment as notary was rejected, then and then alone, can the application be rejected by the competent authority. In all other cases, learned counsel submits, that the competent authority should forward the application along with his recommendation to the State Government and it is for the State Government to consider and pass orders on the application in terms of Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules.. 3. Although Rule 6 of the Rules provide for the preliminary action to be taken by the competent authority in an application for appointment as a notary, I am not in a position to read the rule in the restricted manner in which the counsel for the petitioner wants me to read the same. The question of considering the qualification of the applicant or whether any previous application of the applicant WP(C) 121/2008 Page numbers was rejected arises only in a case where there are vacancies available for appointment. In this case it is not the petitioner's case that 563 notaries are not in place. If 563 notaries, which is the upper limit prescribed by the schedule, are in place, in my view, the competent authority is entitled to reject the application even at the threshhold when he considers the same under Rule 6. Therefore, I cannot accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. No other points raised. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-