JUDGMENT 1. 1. This order will dispose of the two above numbered writ petitions as an identical question is involved as to the appointments of notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short -the Act) and Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules'). 2. Power is vested in the Central Govt. and State Government respectively to appoint any legal-practitioners for the whole or any part of India and whole or any part of the State as the case may be as notaries. There are as many as 4 vacancies of notaries in Jaipur District and from time to time applications had been submitted by the legal-practitioners for appointment against those vacancies. As many as 17 applications had been received from the legal-practitioners including the two applications by the two petitioners. One application was not found to be in order but 16 applications were found to be in order. The objections were invited and thereafter the appointments of non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries for Jaipur District Jaipur was made under order dated 1st December, 1988 (Annexure-3) by the State Government. 3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid appointments of the respondents as notaries inter alia on the grounds (1) they are more meritorious than the non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 6. (2) while appointing the non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries due regard to the provision of rule 7 (3), 7(3)(c) and 7 (3) (e) and rule 8 of the Rules as well as section 15(2) (d) of the Act has not been given, (3) that no basis or criteria at all has been adopted by the State Government in appointing the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries and it is arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and (4) that the appointment has been made on purely political considerations. 4. Both the petitions are contested. It may be stated at the very outset that the case of the two petitioners is not that the non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 who have been appointed as notaries were not eligible for appointment as such and the case is that they were less meritorious than the petitioners. 5. The appointment order is to be made in accordance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 3 to 6 who have been appointed as notaries were not eligible for appointment as such and the case is that they were less meritorious than the petitioners. 5. The appointment order is to be made in accordance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. A petitioner who is appointed as a notary under section 3 of the Act, if he intends to practise as notary, then ups 5 of the Act on payment of the prescribed fee, if any, he is entitled to have his name entered in the Register maintained by the Government under Section 4 and he is entitled to a certificate authorising him to practise for a period of three years, from the date on which the certificate is issued to him. Every such notary who wishes to continue to practise after the expiry of the period for which his certificate of practise has been issued under sub-sec. (1) of Section 5 of the Act, on application made to the Government appointing him and payment of the prescribed fee if any is entitled to have his certificate of practise renewed for three years at a time. A perusal of the provision of the Act, and more so Section 3. 4 and 5 of the Act, will show that once a person is appointed a notary then he is entitled to a certificate authorising him to practice for 3 years from the date the certificate issued to him. But if he wants to continue his practice as a notary then on application made to it. the Government has no option but to renew his certificate of practice for a period of 3 years at a time. Under Section 10 of the Act which deals with the removal of names of notaries from the Register the Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the Register maintained by it under Section 4 the name of the notary, if he (a) makes a request to that effect; or (b) has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or (c) is an undischarged insolvent; or (d) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of some professional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, render him unfit to practise as a notary. 6. 6. The rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Act. Competent Authority is not defined anywhere either in the Act or the Rules, but a look at rule 4(1) of the rules will show that the application has, to be made to the competent authority and an application for appointment as a notary in the form of a memorial addressed to such officer or authority (hereinafter referred to as the competent authority') of the appropriate Government as the Government may by notification in the official Gazette, designate in this behalf. There is no dispute that the Law Secretary has been designated as 'competent authority'. Rule 7 provides that the competent authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representation, :against the objections, if any received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule , make a report to the appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed any part of the area to which the application relates or that may be rejected Under sub-rule (2) of the rule 7 the competent authority shall make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing if any, shall be borne. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 provides that the competent authority shall have due regard while making . recommendations. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules will show that it is only for the State Government who can make appointment of notaries under Section 3 of the Act on the recommendation of the competent-authority. While making the recommendation the competent authority is required to have due regard to the matters contained in sub rule (3) of Rule 7 and those matters:- (i) Whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary; (ii) The commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practise whether if that is such there is necessity to appoint Additional Notary (sic); (iii) The knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objection, if any, raised in respect of the appointment of notary. and in the case of a legal practitioner also should Legal practises (sic); and (iv) The petitioner is more suitable in case the other applicants. 8. The question is as to whether while m eking the recommendations the competent authority took into consideration the matters referred earlier or not. The question is also as to whether any recommendation was made for any of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in preference to the petitioners and others and the State Government applied is mind to the various factors necessary for the appointment of a notary in case there are more than one applicant. 9. The concerned file was sent for and the learned Additional Advocate General has made it available to the Court. An objection has been raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that no such plea was taken in the petition that the competent authority did not make recommendations as required under Rule 7 of the Rules and the factors mentioned therein were not taken into consideration. I find no substance because a bare reading of writ petition No. 4790/88 will show that it ground No. (xii) has been taken that in making the appointments the competent authority has not given due regard to the provisions in Rule 7(3) and 7(3, (c) and 7(3) (e) and 8 of the Rules, 1952 as well as Section 15th (2)(b) of the Act. A look at the relevant file will show that the recommendations of the competent-authority are contained in para 53 and 54. The factor which appears to have been taken into consideration while making the recommendations as it appears from perusal of para 54 of the note-sheet is that such persons who are residents of the area and experience should be considered for appointment as notaries the years of practice of each applicant has also been given. The competent-authority did not take all the factors into consideration while making the recommendations as required under Rule-7 of the Rules more so 7(3)(c) and (e). It was necessary for the competent-authority in case of more applicants than one, and there where as many as 16 applicants for 4 posts of notaries to recommend as to whether one person was more suitable than the other. A look on the aforesaid recommendation contained in para 54 will show that . It was necessary for the competent-authority in case of more applicants than one, and there where as many as 16 applicants for 4 posts of notaries to recommend as to whether one person was more suitable than the other. A look on the aforesaid recommendation contained in para 54 will show that . HINDI MATTER 374004 Thus, the relevant factors as aforesaid do not appear to have been taken into consideration and no recommendations as required in the aforesaid rule appears to were made. The Law Minister on the aforesaid note 54 which are the recommendations of the competent-authority asked the Law Secretary to discuss the matter. Thereafter the objections were heard and decided. The file was placed before the Law Minister and the Law Minister without taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant matters for appointment of the notary appointed respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries. No doubt it is the subjective satisfaction of the State Government which has to make appointments under the Act and Rules but the appointment to the Office of the notary cannot be made arbitrarily. As said earlier the scheme of the Act and Rules referred to earlier makes it quite clear that the various factors and more so a factor of suitability in case there are more than one candidate is necessary to be considered. The merits of each candidate has to be considered. There has thus to be application of mind and all the relevant factors including the length of the practices have to be considered. It does not appear either than (sic from) recommendations of the competent authority or from the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 made by the Minister that all the factors, more so the suitability of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in comparison with the other applicant, were at all considered. The order appears to he without application of mind and made arbitrarily. Any choice made is in contravention Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently I hereby allow the writ petitions, quash the order dated December 1, 1988 of the State Government appointed (sic appointing) the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries for Jaipur District Jaipur. The order appears to he without application of mind and made arbitrarily. Any choice made is in contravention Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently I hereby allow the writ petitions, quash the order dated December 1, 1988 of the State Government appointed (sic appointing) the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as notaries for Jaipur District Jaipur. The Competent-Authority and the State Government shall be free for fresh consideration of the matter of District in the light of the observations made above and according to the relevant provisions of the Rules and the Act.Cost made easy.Petitions allowed. *******