S VENKATESHAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a practising advocate and holding Notary registration, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to renew his Notary certificate as per Section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short "the Act").

(2.) Briefly, the petitioner enrolled himself as an advocate in the year 1968 and has been practising as such. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Notary by the respondent No. 1 on 29-5-1984 and was granted initially the said certificate for a period of three years. Thereafter, the said certificate was being renewed once in three years and thus he has been functioning as a Notary for the last about 18 years without any complaints of whatsoever nature. However, as the existing period of renewal was coming to an end on 29-5-2002, he filed an application on 3-1-2002 under Section 5(2) of the Act to the respondent No. 1 through the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for the purpose of renewal for a further period of three years along with the required challan of Rs. 500/- and other required certificates. It is now represented that on the basis of the said application, the competent authority has recommended in favour of the petitioner on 11-3-2002 after submission of the necessary records by the petitioner on 17-1-2002 in pursuance of an earlier memo dated 9-1-2002 for submission thereof. However, the complaint of the petitioner is that no action is being taken by the respondent No. 1 herein. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit sworn to by one C. Padmanabha Murthy, the Deputy Inspector General (Law) in the office of the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, it has been admitted that the petitioner's application was submitted to the Government as per the letter dated 2-4-2002 of the second respondent. However, the only objection raised is that having regard to the newly inserted sub-rule (4-A) in Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 made under the Act, the number of Notaries is restricted and the existing Notaries are in excess of the number specified in the schedule and, therefore, no orders are being passed and the application is kept pending. It is also the case of the respondents in the said counter that under the proviso thereto, the question of granting renewal beyond the prescribed number of Notaries is not permissible.