--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 7271 / 2011 HEMANT KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P. * * * * * O R D E R ( 12/09/2011) The petitioner before this Court, a Practising Advocate, has filed this present writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint him as Notary and to allow him to work on the post of Notary at Tehsil Rajpur, Distt. Barwani. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued on 31/10/2007 by the learned Distt. & Sessions Judge, Barwani inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Notary. The contention of the petitioner is that he has submitted his application on the prescribed format and other eligible candidates have also submitted their applications. However, he was not appointed on the post of Notary. On the contrary, --- 2 --- one Rajesh Kumar Gupta was appointed as a Notary. Petitioner has further stated that he has preferred a review petition before the State Government and at the same time a writ petition was preferred before this Court and this Court while passing an order in WP No. 4500 / 2008 has directed the State Government to take a final decision in respect of review petition preferred by the petitioner under Rule 8(3) of the Notaries Rules, 1965. Petitioner has further stated that thereafter by a non-speaking order dt. 30/3/10, the review petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by a non speaking order and thereafter this court in W.P.No. 3870 / 2010 has quashed the order passed by the State Government and the matter was remanded back to the State Government to pass a fresh order. Petitioner has further stated that the State Government has now cancelled the appointment of Notary vide order dt. 11/10/2010 in respect of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta on the ground that he was not having 10 years experience. The contention of the petitioner is that once the appointment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, has been cancelled, the petitioner being the eligible candidate is --- 3 --- entitled for appointment as a notary. Learned Government Advocate appearing on advance notice has argued before this court that this Court in the earlier round of litigation this Court has simply directed the State Government to review the order of appointment in respect of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and the same has been done by the State Government. However, there was no order directing the State Government to appoint the petitioner, the petition deserves to be dismissed as they have complied the order passed by this Court in WP No. 3870 / 2010. He has fairly stated before this court that the remaining applications shall be considered by the respondents for the post of Notary in accordance with law. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted his application for appointment of Notary and the petitioner came up before this court against --- 4 --- appointment of certain persons as Notaries. This court has initially directed the State Government to decide the petitioner's review petition and the same was decided by passing a non speaking order. This Court in the second round of litigation has passed the following order : Writ Petition No.3870/2010 21.4.2010 Shri Rajendra Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Patwa learned GA for respondent no.1 on advance copy. With consent heard finally. In the earlier round of litigation in the Writ Petition No.4500/2008 filed by the present petitioner following order was passed on 10.11.2009 by this Court: “The petitioner has approached this Court raising a challenge to an order dt.June 4, 2008 passed by the State Government, respondent No.1, whereby the private respondents have been ordered to be appointed as Notaries under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. At the commencement of arguments, all the learned counsel appearing for the parties inform the Court that on his own showing, the petitioner has already filed a review petition under Rule 8(3) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and the said review petition is yet pending before the Principal Secretary, Department of Law, respondent No.1. --- 5 --- In view of the fact that a statutory review petition filed by the petitioner challenging the appointments of the Notaries is yet pending, it would not be appropriate to examine the validity or otherwise of the appointment orders of the Notaries, to which a challenge has been raised in the present petition. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to continue with the proceedings in the said review petition pending before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is further directed to take a final decision on the said review petition, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties.” Thereafter the first respondent has passed the order dt.30.3.2010 (Annexure P/8) rejecting the petitioner's review petition (Annexure P/5). The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by this court on 10.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.4500/2008 has not been complied with by the first respondent in its correct perspective. He submits that neither the petitioner nor the private respondents have been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dt.30.3.2010. He further submits that the order is a non speaking and cryptic order which deserves to be quashed at the threshold. Having heard learned counsel for --- 6 --- the petitioner and learned GA for respondent no.1 and after going through the earlier order passed by this Court on 10.11.2009 and the impugned order dt.30.3.2010 (Annexure P/8) I am of the view that the order impugned is a non speaking order. There is total non application of mind. The earlier order passed by this Court has also not been complied with in its correct perspective. Having noticed all these infirmities I have no option but to quash the impugned order dt.30.3.2010 (Annexure P/8) with a direction to the first respondent to comply the order dt.10.11.2009 passed by this Court in its correct perspective. It is expected from the first respondent to comply the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4500/2008 as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. C.C.today. The respondent State has now quashed the order of appointment of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta. This Court has carefully gone through the the earlier orders passed by this court in the matter and the State Government has rightly passed the impugned order dt. 11/10/2010. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the respondent State is directed to process the remaining applications for the post of Notary in question and to take a final decision in the matter within a period of 6 --- 7 --- months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No case for admission is made out in the matter. The admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR