N K PALIWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition asserting that he is now practising at Pohri. Earlier, he was practising at Shivpuri. He wanted to be appointed as a Notary. He submitted an application on 5th of Dec. 1991. Instead of appointing the petitioner as 'Notary', another advocate, namely, Ramsewak Gupta was so appointed. It is this appointment which is being challenged.

(3.) The challenge is made on the ground that under Rule 7(1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, an inquiry is required to be held by the competent authority and in case some material is there to reject the candidature of the person then he should be given an opportunity. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not residing at Pohri. This fact is disputed by the petitioner.