KIRITSINH D RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nisha Parikh wavies service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel Mr.R.M. Chhaya with Mr. Hriday Buch waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3. The present application has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.3 as Notary for Barvala Taluka as well as for getting direction upon Government to appoint the petitioner as a Notary for Barvala Taluka.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have not followed the procedure as laid down under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules,1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,1952" and "the Rules,1956"). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are criminal cases registered against respondent No.3 and so he ought not to have been appointed as a Notary. There are also objections raised for appointment of respondent No.3 as a Notary and these objections have not been considered by the respondent authorities. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate and is having Sanad from year 1995, whereas respondent No.3 is having his Sanad from year 1997. Thus, the petitioner is senior advocate in comparison to respondent No.3. There is no stigma attached to the petitioner and without considering these aspects of the matter, respondent No.3 has been appointed as a Notary by State of Gujarat. In fact, originally three candidates had applied for Notary for Barvala Taluka. Out of three candidates, one is not qualified and, therefore, only two candidates were left out. The petitioner should be given appointment as there are no disqualifications attached to the respondent No.3.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Chhaya on behalf of respondent No.3 submitted that avernments and allegations made in the memo of the petition to the effect that a criminal offence bearing C.R.No.I-58 of 2002 of Barvala Police Station registered against respondent No.3 is factually incorrect. With the affidavit-in reply, copy of the charge-sheet is annexed, which does not reveal the name of respondent No.3. Thus, deliberately the avernments have been made by the petitioner that the respondent No.3 is involved in commissioning of the offence bearing C.R. No. I-58 of 2002. Respondent No.3 is fully qualified for the appointment of a Notary. As per Rule 3 of Notaries Rules, 1956, not in a single criminal case, there is a conviction to respondent No.3. On the contrary, in criminal case bearing C.R.No.I-58 of 2002 registered at Barvala Police Station, an acquittal order has been passed by the competent Court on 12th January,2007. Mere registration of criminal complaint does not amount to disqualification, as per Rules, 1956.