A GOURISANKAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Those who ordinarily appear in court for others, are themselves in court now. They complain against an illegality on the part of the Government; on the part of the Law Department of the Government. A legal question is involved concerning a Central enactment. Viewed from another aspect, a larger one of constitutional perspective is also involved in view of a somewhat strange stand taken by the Government in its counter affidavit. The petitioners, as hinted earlier, are legal practitioners, Advocates, practising in different courts, from one end of the State to the other. They had been appointed by the Government, as Notary Public. Most of them have been appointed under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a comprehensive legislation adopted by the Parliament in the early years of the Republic. The appointment is for a term but is renewable. The statutory requirements for the renewal were complied with by all of them. They were, however, confronted with the policy decision of the State Government. It was through a section officer of the Law Department that this policy decision was conveyed to the court by a counter affidavit. The stand point of the Government can be exposed to public gaze by extracting the very words:

(2.) Two contentions are prominently projected (A) The State Government has no authority to decline a renewal, when a notary who wishes to continue to practise after the expiry of the period, makes an application and pays the prescribed fee. (B) The policy decision indicated in the counter affidavit is totally arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and liable to be struck down.

(3.) An examination of these rival contentions would justify a recapitulation of the history of the institution of the notary public.