HUKAN CHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Notary for the district of Muzaffarnagar appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952. On 14th October, 1970, the State Government issued a circular order directing the District Judges of the State to make recommendations for the appointment of additional Notaries. THE Government order stated that the Government was satisfied that the average income of a Notary should not be less than Rs. 300/- per month and on this principle wherever necesary more notaries should be appointed. THE order further directed the District Judge to examine the question on the principles enunciated in the order and if necessary to recommend for the appointment of additional hands as Notaries. THE District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, on scrutiny found that the average monthly income of the two Notaries working in the district of Muzaffarnagar was Rs. 1300/-per month, he thereupon invited applications for the appointment of Notaries. THE petitioner and certain other persons thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legal validity of the principles laid down in the order of the State Government and the proceedings taken for appointment of additional Notaries. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petitions. THE petitioner and other affected persons took up the matter in special appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18th April, 1972 dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE District Judge thereupon published the applications in accordance with the rules and invited objections. THE petitioner filed objection and made a prayer for the inspection of the memorial made by the applicants. THE District Judge did not permit the inspection. THE petitioner thereupon filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge inviting applications for the appointment of two more Notaries in the district of Muzaffarnagar and also to quash the order dated 17th March, 1972, making recommendation to the State Government for the appointment of two more Notaries. During the pendency of the writ petition the State Government on the recommendations of the District Judge appointed Sarvasri Vedpal Singh Lotiyan, Hari Mohan Mittal and Zamir Uddin Advocates as Notaries for the district of Muzaffarnagar. THE petitioner then got the petition amended challenging the appointment of the aforesaid persons as Notaries.

(3.) THE petitioner' s contention that he was entitled to inspect the memorial filed under R. 6 of the rules framed under the Notaries Act, 1952, and he was wrongly refused inspection cannot be accepted. In his application for the inspection of the memorial the petitioner had himself stated that there was no provision under the Act or the rules for inspection of Memorials. THE purpose for inviting objection is to give an opportunity to the members of the public to raise objection against the appointment of any undesirable person. THE petitioner was given opportunity of filing objection. He appeared personally before the District Judge and advanced his oral arguments against the candidates. In these circumstances, the petitioner had availed opportunity of objection as contemplated by the rules. THE petitioner was not entitled to inspect the memorials, namely, the applications made by the applicants who were candidates for appointment as notaries.