KEDARNATH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W.P.No.702/2007(S) have been dealt with.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court who is a practising advocate has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the appointment of respondents No.5, Munna Lal Dhakad and No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar as notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952 read with the Notaries Rules, 1956 for the area of Kailaras, district Morena by an order dated 22nd December, 2006 (AnnexureP/11) and 04th January, 2007 (AnnexureP/12) respectively. The contention of the petitioner is that in the year 2007, a notification was issued by the State Government on 30th May, 1997 (AnnexureP/2) inviting the applications for appointment of notaries in respect of Kailaras area, District Morena and the petitioner being a permanent resident of Kailaras town and a practising advocate has submitted his application for consideration of his candidature to be appointed as notary. Objections were also invited on 08th June, 1997 and large number of representations were received by the District Judge, Morena. The petitioner's further contention is that the respondents No. 1 to 3 without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner and other persons so also, without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1956 appointed Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad and Munna Lal Dhakad as notaries and the petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of the aforesaid persons came up before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was registered as W.P.No.194 of 1998 and the same was decided by an order dated 21st January, 2000. The contention of the petitioner is that while deciding the aforesaid writ petition in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, this Court has held that the proper procedure was not followed and the District Judge has not given any finding in respect of the experience and knowledge about the commercial laws. The contention of the petitioner is that this Court in the earlier round of litigation has held that the knowledge can be tested by written test or personal interview arranged by the competent authority under the Act, 1952 read with the Rules, 1956 and also as regards the knowledge of the applicant's notarial law, commercial law, drafting of various kinds of testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, affidavits, documents, etc., Thus, in short this Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation and the District Judge, Morena was directed to prepare a fresh panel keeping in view the provisions of the Act, 1952 read with Rules, 1956 enabling the Government to appoint notary.

(3.) The petitioner has further contended that being aggrieved by the action of the District Judge in forwarding a panel to the District Magistrate without following the prescribed procedure as provided under rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 appointing Munna Lal Dhakad and Kedar Nath Sharma as notaries ignoring the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998(supra), another writ petition was filed and the same was registered as W.P.No.49 of 2001(Lajja Ram Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others) and this Court by an order dated 07th September, 2005 has once again held in paragraph 9 that the District Judge while recommending the matter to the State Government has totally ignored the provisions of rule 7 and has also ignored the observations made in paragraph 10 of the earlier passed by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). The matter was again remanded back to the District Judge to draw a panel keeping in view the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 read with paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). The grievance of the petitioner is that once again the District Judge, Morena has totally ignored the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 and has also not taken into account the observations made in paragraph 10 of W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra) and W.P.No.49 of 2001 (supra) while recommending the panel to the State Government for appointment on the post of Notary. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent / State has appointed the persons out of the panel forwarded by the District Judge and the persons who have been appointed are less meritorious and they were placed below in the panel and a method of pick and choose has been adopted by the State Government while issuing the appointment order as notaries. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition and prayed for quashing appointment of the respondents No.5, Munna Lai Dhakad and No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar as notaries.