RAJNI JAIN Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a candidate for appointment as notary, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification No. F.17/5/91-Judl., dated 30 April 1992, whereby 32advocates were appointed as Notaries under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. These advocates are respondents 4 to 35. Respondents 1,2 and 3 are respectively the Lt. Governor of Delhi, the Delhi Administration through the Secretary (Law and Judicial), and again the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi through its Chief Secretary. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents I, 2 and 3 to appoint her as a Notary as it is stated that there are still eight vacancies existing as she says she fulfills all the qualifications for appointment as a Notary. Further direction is sought that appointment of Notaries be made following the procedure prescribed under the Notaries Act, 1952. and the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short "the Act" and "the Rules" respectively).

(2.) Before we examine the rival contentions it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under section 3, the Central Government for the whole or any part of India, and any State Government for the whole or any part of the State, may appoint as notaries any legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed. "Legal practitioner" has been defined in clause (c) of section 2 of tlie Act and there is no controversy that the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 35 are legal practitioners within the meaning of this clause. Section 4 deals with maintaining of registers of notaries so appointed and the particulars which are to becontained in the registers. Section 5 deals with entry of names in the register and issue or renewal of certificates of practice, and it is as under :-

(3.) We have set out the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules to show the importance offunctions of a notary and the process which the law requires has to be gone into before any appointment to the post of notary could be made. Petitioner has contended that the appointment of respondents 4 to 35 had been made inbreach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The respondents have denied this. To decide the rival contentions between the parties we thought it was more appropriate to examine the record of respondents 1,2 and 3 pertaining to the appointment of respondents 4 to 35. However, it is not necessary for us to detail as to how the file moved from the office of the Deputy Commissioner to the Delhi Administration and back and forth and ultimately culminating in the appointment of respondents 4 to 35.