STATE OF KERALA Vs. M SAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel representing party respondents. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was appointed as a Notary Public as per Ext. P1 dated 03.03.2006. However, he could not get certificate of practice as indicated in Section 9 of the Notaries Act, 1952 on account of some controversy with regard to number of Notaries who could have been enrolled in the State of Kerala. However, the complaint against the respondent was that before he could be given certificate of practice, he had displayed a board declaring himself as Notary in bold letters, therefore it contravened Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, his application came to be rejected. It is not in dispute that prior to this writ petition, he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29421 of 2006, wherein the learned Judge gave the following directions.:

(2.) According to the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, nothing in the Statute either the Notaries Act or the rules framed under the Notaries Act would come in the way of issuing a certificate of practice in his favour as he has not conducted anything which would amount to misconduct and even allegation of display of the Board would not attract any of the provisions under the enactment. The learned Judge, after referring to Ext. P6 cancelling appointment of the petitioner as Notary proceeded to hold that Ext. P6 is not in accordance with the rules contemplated; therefore, cancellation of enrollment as Notary is unjustified. Accordingly, Ext. P6 came to be quashed. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before us in this Appeal.

(3.) According to the learned Government Pleader, though the concerned officer signed the order of appointment, it was officially not notified, in other words, not gazetted. But the fact remains Ext. P1 was received by the party respondent. As per Ext. P1, we note that apart from just signing the Notification, it was forwarded to different Departments including the respondent, under the signature of Section Officer concerned. This is how, the respondent got a copy of the order. Even otherwise, the contents of Ext. P6 refers to Sec. 9 of the Notaries Act, 1952. At paragraph 4 of the order, they presumed that he was practising as a Notary Public without a valid certificate of practice which amounts to misconduct. The party respondent has not at all denied displaying of such board. But he has categorically denied practising as a Notary Public as such. Section 9 of the Notaries Act reads as under: