DAYANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the appointment of respondents 3 to 18 to perform the function of notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in District Bulandshahar, U.P. The petitioners themselves are also notaries practising as such in District Bulandshahar, U.P. The petitioners were appointed by the State Government whereas the respondents 3 to 18 are notaries appointed by the Central Government. These facts are not in dispute.

(2.) The only bone of contention is that the respondents 3 to 18 who have been appointed as such by the Central Government have not been appointed validly inasmuch as the competent authority has not recommended their cases for such appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the competent authority is the District Judge, Bulandshahar (Respondent No.2) herein. He has referred to a letter dated 11.1.1996 purportedly issued by the District Judge and addressed to the Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer, U.P., Lucknow to the effect that appointment of respondents 3 to 18 were illegal and done without any recommendation or intimation of the District Judge. A counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Prem Nath, First Civil Judge, Judicial Division, Bulandshehar, U.P. On behalf of the District Judge, Bulandshehar, i.e. respondent No.2. In that affidavit at paragraph 5 it is categorically stated as under:-

(3.) Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that even if it were to be assumed that such a letter was written, it would be of no effect inasmuch as the District Judge is not the competent authority in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under The Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) an application for appointment as a Notary is to be made under Rule 4 in the form of a memorial addressed to such officer or authority of the appropriate Government as the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate in this behalf. Such officer or authority of the appropriate government is conveniently termed as the "competent authority". The appointments made in respect of respondents 3 to 18 have been made by the Central Government and not by the State Government. In this context, it would be relevant to point out Section 3 of the said Act which empowers the Central Government as well as the State Government to appoint Notaries. Insofar as the Central Government is concerned, it may appoint notaries for the whole or part of India and insofar as the State Government is concerned, it may appoint Notaries for the whole or any part of the concerned State. So, it is clear that Notaries may be appointed either by the State Government or by the Central Government. In case the appointments are made by the Central Government, the concept of appropriate Government, as indicated in Rule 4 would have to be construed in terms of the definition given to appropriate Government in Rule 2 (a) of the said Rules. Rule 2(a) prescribes that "appropriate Government" means, in relation to a notary appointed by the Central Government, the Central Government, and in relation to a notary-appointed by the State Government, the State Government. Reading Rule 4 with the definition contained in Rule 2(a), it is apparent that the competent authority must be of the appropriate Government. In other words, the competent authority in the case of appointments made by the Central Government will be an officer or authority of the Central Government. In this case, it is an admitted position that the respondents 3 to 18 had been appointed by the Central Government and, therefore, the officer or authority mentioned in Rule 4 will be an officer or authority of the Central Government and not of the State Government. As such, the District Judge, Bulandshehar (respondent No.2) would not be the competent authority for this purpose.