Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is an advocate. He is also a Notary Public appointed as such for a period of three years from 11-3-1985 under S.3 of the Notaries Act, 53 of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. As per S.8 of the Act the petitioner is entitled inter alia to verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument. An instrument is defined in S.2(b) as including every document by which any right or liability is. or purported to be, created, transferred, modified, limited, extended, suspended, extinguished or recorded. I must also mention here that as per S.6 of the Act, the Central Government and every State Government, should, during the month of January each year publish in the official gazette a list of Notaries appointed by the Government. 2. Petitioner's grievance is in relation to the refusal by the 4th respondent, the Regional Passport Officer at Cochin, to accept photographs certified by the petitioner for purposes of applications under the Passports Act 15 of 1967. Petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent was accepting such photographs certified by the petitioner as valid, but that recently he has shifted his stand and returned such applications accompanied by photographs certified by the petitioner, with the remark that the photographs should be certified not by a Notary but by a gazetted officer. Petitioner's contention is that, as a Notary appointed under the Act, S.8 enables him to certify the photographs for purposes of the Passports Act, inasmuch as such photographs constitute "instrument" as defined in S.2 (b) of the Act. He also contends that even if the view taken by the 4th respondent is correct that the certification should be by a gazetted officer, a Notary appointed under the Act is a Gazetted officer, inasmuch as a list of Notaries is published, under S.6, in the official Gazette. For this latter proposition, be places reliance on the comment in Moolchand M. Gupta's Commentaries on Laws relating to Notaries in India where the learned author observes thus at page 7: "Gazetted Officer. Since the appointment and removal of a Notary are published in the official Gazette of the Government there seems no valid reason as to why a Notary may not be deemed or treated as Gazetted Officer, in absence of any specific definition of Gazetted Officer." 3. Since the appointment and removal of a Notary are published in the official Gazette of the Government there seems no valid reason as to why a Notary may not be deemed or treated as Gazetted Officer, in absence of any specific definition of Gazetted Officer." 3. The Law Society of India which claims to be interested in the result of this original petition has also applied for being impleaded, inasmuch as the interests of Advocates and Notaries are involved in this original petition. 4. The 4th respondent Passport Officer refutes the claims made by the petitioner. Inter alia it is pointed out that be has to act as per the provisions of the Passports Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. As per the Passports (Second Amendment) R.1985, every application for passport has to be accompanied by 5 copies of photographs of the size mentioned, showing the frontal view of the full face, against light background, of the applicant. Al) the copies of the photographs should be endorsed on the back "true likeness of..." and attested by a "Station House Officer, a Gazetted Officer of a State or Central Government or Magistrate". The Rules do not permit attestation by a Notary, and have prescribed that the attestation should be done only by the categories of officers mentioned. The 4th respondent who is bound by these Rules has therefore to insist on attestation by one or other of these officers and cannot accept applications with photographs attested by a Notary Public, since that is not warranted by the Rules. It is also stated that the photograph accompanying an application for passport is not an "instrument" and hence the question of a Notary attesting it does not arise. It is submitted that even if a Notary, is entitled to attest such a document, that cannot avail for the purpose of the Passports Act when there is specific provision prescribing the mode of attestation. 5. The 4th respondent contends also that be has not accepted any application with photographs attested by the petitioner and submits further that even if any such application bad been accepted by mistake, that will not avail the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner to be treated as a gazetted officer is also controverted. 6. S.5 of the Passports Act 1967 requires that an application for the issue of a passport is to be made to the passport authority. The claim of the petitioner to be treated as a gazetted officer is also controverted. 6. S.5 of the Passports Act 1967 requires that an application for the issue of a passport is to be made to the passport authority. It shall be in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. The prescription is in Schedule III to the Rules, and the Form EA(p) (1) requires five copies of the photograph to accompany the application, attested as the true likeness of the applicant by a Station House Officer, gazetted officer of State or Central Government or Magistrate. When the Act and the Rules prescribe the form in which the application is to be made, the Passport Officer who is functioning under the Act is bound thereby and has to ensure that the application complies with the requirements of the Rules. In other words be has to ensure that the photograph is attested by one or other of the officers specified in the Rules. He cannot deviate therefrom. 7. The rationale behind requiring attestation by the categories of officers mentioned is explained in Para.7 of the counter affidavit. It is stated that the amendment prescribing such attestation was introduced in 1985 to ensure that the photographs of the applicants were attested on the basis of personal knowledge of the attesting officers in regard to the identity of the applicants. A Notary Public being a professional man cannot be expected to attest a photograph on the basis of personal knowledge about the identity of the applicant. This is necessary to avoid issue of passport to non-Indian nationals. In the event of any mistaken identity in the issue of a passport, the authorities have to make the attesting authorities responsible and liable for the same, which may not be effective, if attestation is permitted by a Notary. 8. If this be the intent of the Rules, and of the prescription for attestation, it cannot be said that the insistence on attestation by the officers mentioned is in any mariner unreasonable, or that, despite that prescription, a Notary should nevertheless be entitled to attest the photographs. 9. The question whether a Notary is, by virtue of his appointment, entitled to attest such a photograph under S.8 of the Act, is itself a moot point. 9. The question whether a Notary is, by virtue of his appointment, entitled to attest such a photograph under S.8 of the Act, is itself a moot point. Whether a photograph of this nature will constitute an "instrument" as defined in the Act will require consideration. However, I do not think it necessary to go into that question in these proceedings in the view which I am taking otherwise. S.8 only enables a Notary to do one or other of the various acts by virtue of bis office. It is not as if a right is conferred on him which is absolute or not liable to be divested by other enactments. It is not as if the Notaries Act overrides every other enactment. Nor does it preclude the appropriate government from prescribing particular methods of attestation in defined situations. The Notaries Act is of the year 1952. The Passports Act is of the year 1967 and the Rules in question came in 1985. Even assuming that the Notaries Act operates in the same field as the provisions relating to attestation in the Passport Rules, still it has to be held that the provisions of the latter which are in a special enactment dealing with a particular subject matter should override the provisions of the general enactment relating to notaries. The conflict, if any, has to be resolved in favour of the special enactment. The fact that the Passport Rules are later in point of time and were framed with the full knowledge of the provisions of the Notaries Act, indicates positively that a notary appointed under the Notaries Act is not permitted to attest photographs for the 'purposes of the Passports Act. A notary cannot therefore, ipso facto claim a right to attest photographs for the purposes of the Passports Act, 10. The claim of the petitioner to be treated as a gazetted officer is again unsustainable. The term "gazetted officer", of course, is not defined in the Notaries Act or in the Passports Act. However, it is a term which has received a definite accepted connotation in the service law of the country. It refers to an officer of the State or Central Government with a definite status. A notary is a professional, and is not an officer of the Government. However, it is a term which has received a definite accepted connotation in the service law of the country. It refers to an officer of the State or Central Government with a definite status. A notary is a professional, and is not an officer of the Government. The sine qua non of a person being a gazetted officer is his being an officer of the Central or State Government. A professional who is not answerable to the Government as one of its employees or officers cannot be a gazetted officer. It is not the publication of a person's name in the official gazette that makes him a gazetted officer, but his occupying a definite official status, in the hierarchy of government service. It is not therefore, possible to accept the view expressed by the learned author mentioned earlier, and relied on by counsel for the petitioner, in this regard. Both the contentions raised by the petitioner therefore, fail. The original petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.