THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8550 of 2002 DATED 14.10.2009 BETWEEN: Sevender Kumar … Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue (Registration & Mandal), Secretariat, Hyderabad And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8550 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate on 12.04.1990. He is practising at Suryapet, Nalgonda District. He applied to second respondent seeking appointment as Notary under Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956 (Rules, for brevity). Second respondent who is competent to receive application for appointment as Notary duly recommended and forwarded the application to first respondent on 13.05.2000. First respondent accepted the same and issued Memo, dated 27.06.2001 to that effect and requested second respondent to take further necessary action. Second respondent who is required to issue ‘Certificate of Practice’ under Rule 8(4) of the Rules did not pass orders. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court seeking such direction. Second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition. The only ground urged is that in view of amendment made to Notaries Rules with effect from 09.05.2001 inserting Rule 8(4-A), petitioner cannot be appointed as a Notary as his appointment would exceed the number of Notaries specified in the Schedule inserted by the amended Rule. Learned counsel places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Parchuri Kishore v Government of Andrha Pradesh[1] and submits that the proposal was sent by second respondent appointing petitioner as Notary long prior to coming into force of amendment and therefore, there is no bar for appointment of petitioner as Notary. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA) relies on the Judgment of this Court in A.Sambi Reddy v Government of Andhra Pradesh[2] and submits that the acceptance was after the amendment and therefore, petitioner cannot be issued Certificate of Practice. I n Parchuri Kishore (supra), application of petitioner therein was forwarded by Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps prior to coming into force of Rule 8(4-A) of the Rules, but the Government issued memo on 05.07.2001 accepting recommendation and directing the Commissioner to issue Certificate of Practice. Therefore, this Court took the view that Rule 8(4-A) of the Rules which was inserted by Notaries (Second Amendment) Rules, 2001 has no application. In the case on hand, petitioner’s application was long prior to coming into force of amendment. The recommendation by second respondent was also long prior thereto. In spite of two reminders, first respondent did not issue necessary orders immediately and ultimately issued memo No.39934/R&M.1/2000-3 on 27.06.2001 accepting the proposal of second respondent for appointment of petitioner as Notary. Indeed, first respondent also requested second respondent to take further necessary action, which only means that second respondent should issue Certificate of Practice. Therefore, this Court is convinced that second amendment inserting Rule 8(4-A) to the Rules has no application to the case of petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing second respondent to issue Certificate of Practice to petitioner subject to condition that petitioner would comply with all the other requirements. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.10.2009 pln [1] 2002 (2) ALD 627 [2] 2002 (3) ALD 424