IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 W.P(C).No. 4041 of 2008(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- GEORGE THOMAS, ADVOCATE, ELAVINAMANNIL, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, NEW DELHI. BY ASST. S.G - SRI.G. PARAMESWARAN NAIR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO.4041 OF 2008 F =========================== Dated this the 4 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that in 2001, he had applied for appointment as a Notary Public. It is stated that although process of appointment was completed, by Ext.P4 order issued by the 1 st respondent, petitioner was informed that by notification No.GSR 296(E) dated 19/5/05, the Notaries Rules, 1956 were amended and that the 1 st respondent could appoint only 563 Notaries in the State. It is also informed that since the number of Notaries in the State exceeded the number prescribed in the Rules, his application is rejected. It is challenging Ext.P4 and seeking to declare Rule 8(4A )of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and the schedule attached thereto, to the extent it stipulates 563 as the total number of Notaries in the Kerala State, this writ petition has been WPC 4041/08 :2 : filed. 2. As is evident from the pleadings itself, in terms of Rule 8 (4A) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, the competent authority is entitled to fix the maximum number of notaries to be appointed in a State. It is in exercise of this legislative power that the respondents fixed 563 as the maximum number of Notaries to be appointed in Kerala State. The challenge to the rule is on the basis that it offends the Constitution of India and the Notaries Act. But the petitioner has not substantiated any of these contentions by referring to the provisions of the Constitution or the provision of the Notaries Act, which is stated to have been violated. Therefore, petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that these provisions violated any of the constitutional provisions or that the upper limit prescribed is in excess of the powers conferred under the plenary statute namely the Notaries Act. 3. Petitioner contends that the upper limit prescribed is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The statute only WPC 4041/08 :3 : prescribes a limit on the number of notaries to be appointed. This is only a reasonable restriction and any fundamental right, be it under Article 14 or 19 can always is subject to reasonable restrictions. In my view, by fixing the limit on the number of Notaries to be appointed in the State, the 1 st respondent has only placed a restriction, which is only reasonable. 4. Referring to Ext.P5(a), reply given to the petitioner to his application under the Right to Information Act, petitioner submits that even after the notification was issued on 9/5/2001, appointments have been made and that presently the total strength of Notaries in the State is 669 and therefore the upper limit prescribed has no sanctity. It may be true that such excess appointments have been made. Obviously, the respondents having fixed the upper limit of 563, could not have made appointments in excess of the upper limit that is prescribed. However, any appointment that is made in excess of the strength will not justify a direction by this Court to make yet another WPC 4041/08 :4 : appointment as is claimed by the petitioner. None can cite an illegality as a precedent and claim its repetition. In my view, at best, it can invalidate the appointment so made, but this Court will not be justified in relying on such irregular appointment and direct more appointments. Such irregular appointments even if it is made, cannot give rise to a case of discrimination also. In my view, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp