S. VINCENT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an advocate practising in Neyyattinkara Courts. He enrolled as an advocate on 21.12.1990. According to him, he is qualified for appointment as Notary and he satisfy the eligibility criteria required as per Rule 3 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short "the Rules"). The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 memorial to the respondent. The competent authority examined Ext.P1 and conducted a preliminary enquiry as envisaged under Rule 6. After the enquiry, the competent authority submitted a report to the respondent recommending that the petitioner may be allowed to appear before the Interview Board. Ext.P2 is the report. The Interview Board constituted by the respondent asked the petitioner to appear before the Interview Board on 30.10.2014 and the petitioner appeared before the Board. The Board thereafter submitted its recommendation to the respondent. Ext.P3 is the recommendation. In Ext.P3, the petitioner was found to be competent for appointment as Notary for Neyyattinkara Taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that when there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter to the authorities. Even then, there was no response and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 16077/2019 and this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment, directed the authorities to finalise the application submitted by the petitioner within a time frame. Based on the direction from this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the authority concerned passed Ext.P6 order by which the application of the petitioner is dismissed saying that there is no intention to the Government to appoint any new Notary as per Rule 8(1) (c) in Neyyattinkara Taluk. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 review petition before the authority concerned. As per Ext.P8 order, the review petition also dismissed with an observation that there are more eligible applicants in Neyyattinkara Taluk and the request of the petitioner to consider his application to appoint Notary at Thriuvananthapuram District cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is a lawyer practising for the last 30 years. The counsel takes me through Ext.P2 inspection report in which it is stated that the applicant is a reputed person of the locality having good practice record. In Ext.P2, the authority concerned recommended that the applicant may be allowed to appear before the Interview Board. The counsel also takes me through Ext.P3, by which the competent authority inspected the office of the petitioner and submitted his report. The counsel submitted that the finding in Exts.P6 and P8 are contradictory. The counsel submitted that in Ext.P6, it is stated that there is no proposal to appoint any Notary in Neyyattinkara Taluk. But in Ext.P8, it is stated that there are more eligible persons at Neyyattinkara Taluk and request of the petitioner to consider his appointment outside Neyyattinkara Taluk is also rejected. The counsel submitted that in the instruction now submitted by the authority concerned will show that the appointment of notaries are not made for vacancy in an area but to State wide vacancies. The counsel submitted that the finding in Exts.P6 and P8 are unsustainable.