S N MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioners in W. P. No. 83/2007 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 5-9-2007 (reported in 2007 (6) AIR Kar R 359)wherein the writ petition seeking for quashing of the order dated 24-12-2005 appointing respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition as notaries has been dismissed.

(2.) THE Government issued a notification calling for application for appointment to the post of Notaries. The second respondent-Prl. District Judge, Hassan, is the competent authority under the notaries Act. The second respondent issued a notification on 24-6-2005 calling for memorials of Advocates who have put in more than ten years of practice for appointment to the post of Notary in accordance with Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short, 'the Rules'), application to be submitted on or before 24-6-2005. The writ petitioners 1 to 4-respondents 3 to 6 and others made an application for appointment of notary and on the recommendation of the second respondent, the government has issued a notification on 24-12-2005 appointing respondents 3 to 6 as notaries. Being aggrieved by the said order appointing respondents 3 to 6 as notaries, writ petition was filed seeking for quashing of the said order alleging that there is non-compliance of rules 6 and 7 of the Notaries Rules. It was contended by the writ petitioner that copy of the notification calling for objections from the Bar Association was not issued as required under Rule 6 (2) (a) of the Rules and no enquiry was held by the second respon-dent-the competent authority recommending respondents 3 to 6 for the posts of notary and if notification had been issued, petitioners would have filed objections for appointment of respondents 3 to 6 as notary and therefore, the order appointing respondents 3 to 6 as notary is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE second respondent filed objections denying the averments made in the petition and further averred that Rule 6 (2) (a) has been deleted with effect from 8-7-1997 and therefore, the procedure of sending notification to the Bar Association calling for objections if any, is dispensed with in view of the deletion of Rule 6 (2) (a) of the Rules and since no objection have been received and there was no necessity of holding any enquiry the second respondent after duly verifying the memorials submitted by the applicants, recommended for appointment of respondents 3 to 6 and accordingly notification has been issued and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.