NASEERA BEEGUM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a lawyer by profession, applied for appointment as Notary in Karunagappilly Taluk by submitting Ext.P1 application dated 2.2.2006. The competent authority nominated by the Government considered the application, conducted an inspection and recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Notary Public. It appears, even without an order of the Government the petitioner remitted the fee of Rs.1,000/- on 8.3.2006 in the Sub Treasury at Karunagappilly and produced the counterfoil evidencing payment of the fee before the Law Secretary and requested him to issue a Certificate of Practice. When no action was taken in the matter, she filed W.P.(C) No.22416 of 2006 in this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the State of Kerala to issue a Certificate of Practice, authorising her to practice as Notary in Karunagappilly Taluk. It was contended that as the application submitted by the petitioner stands allowed and as directed by the State she had remitted the prescribed fee for the issuance of a Certificate of Practice, the delay on the part of the State in issuing the Certificate of Practice is arbitrary and illegal. Relying on rule 8(4) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 it was contended that once an application is allowed and the prescribed fee is remitted, the applicant is entitled to a Certificate of Practice.

(2.) THE State of Kerala resisted W.P.(C)No.22416 of 2006 by filing a counter affidavit. In paragraphs 2 to 7 thereof it was contended as follows:

(3.) W .P.(C)No.22416 of 2006 came up for hearing before a learned single judge of this Court on 22.10.2008. Taking note of the stand of the State Government in its counter affidavit, a learned single judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 22.10.2008 with the following directions: