NEELAKANT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO practising Advocates at Dandeli have presented these writ petitions questioning the appointment of the 2nd respondent-another Advocate as notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 by the 1st respondent as per order dated 23rd June, 2000 (copy at Annexure-M ).

(2.) PETITIONERS have contended that they were also aspirants for the said appointment and had filed their applications seeking appointment as a notary. The District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, who is the Competent Authority to consider applications of interested persons to be appointed as notary had found that the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent who were the aspirants and who had applied for being appointed as a notary pursuant to notification in this regard had not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 3 of the notaries Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules'), inasmuch as they had not produced any proof to substantiate that they had practised at the Bar for more than 10 years and rejected their applications.

(3.) IT appears, however that the 1 st respondent-State Government having appointed the 2nd respondent as a notary under the impugned order, petitioners have approached this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Judge rejecting their applications as not one eligible for consideration and also the subsequent appointment order issued by the Government appointing the 2nd respondent as notary.