Judgment :- Jagannadha Rao, CJ. The interesting point arising in these batch of appeals is whether a person registered as a Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 has an automatic right of renewal under S.5(2) of the Act. In all the cases before us the Law Secretary has informed the various applicants that he is directed to inform them that their applications for renewal are rejected since the Government has taken a decision not to give more than two renewals to any Notary. The writ petitioners were also informed by the Law Secretary that they could apply afresh. Questioning the various orders the Notaries filed the writ petitions. The learned single judge considered the position of Notaries in England and India in a very elaborate judgment and also considered the various provisions in the Act and Rules including the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act containing references to the Notary public. The learned judge then considered Section 5(2) of the Act and observed as follows: "The scheme of the enactment and the rules abundantly makes it clear that the greatest scrutiny is made at the time of the initial entry. Once enrolled, continuation is almost automatic. Application for renewal and payment of the fee are matters of a mechanical character. Removal is a matter of significance and for that separate provision is made." The learned judge then pointed out that in various other enactments, similar schemes for automatic renewal are there even in relation to matters of trade, taxing enactments like Incometax Act and Sales tax laws etc. The learned judge finally observed that the word 'shall' in Section 5(2) is a clear indication that the renewal is automatic. The exercise of the powers is conditioned by the statutory provision and the Government, the learned judge held, has to function within the framework of the Act and Rules. Policy considerations are already taken care of when Parliament passed the law. The learned judge observed that the State Government cannot therefore inject into the system something which according to its notion, is a better nutrient. The learned judge considered various decisions in relation to the position of Notaries and also the judgment of P.B. Mukerji, J. of the Calcutta High Court in In re K.K.Ray (Private) Limited (AIR 1967 Cal. 636). The learned judge observed that the State Government cannot therefore inject into the system something which according to its notion, is a better nutrient. The learned judge considered various decisions in relation to the position of Notaries and also the judgment of P.B. Mukerji, J. of the Calcutta High Court in In re K.K.Ray (Private) Limited (AIR 1967 Cal. 636). Having construed Sec. 5(2) as mandatory, the learned judge allowed all the writ petitions and directed that the orders terminating the appointments of the writ petitioners are quashed and declared that subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules, those who have already registered are entitled to automatic renewal of their registration on the payment of the fee and making of the application. 2. These appeals are preferred by the State of Kerala. We have heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the important question involved and we have ultimately come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Notaries Act, 1952, as they stand today, do not intend to confer any discretion on the Government at the time of a renewal application made by a Notary. This is clear from the language in Section 5(2) of the Act itself which reads as follows: "Every such notary who wishes to continue to practice after the expiry of the period for which his certificate of practice has been issued under this section shall on application made to the Government appointing him and payment of the prescribed fee, if any, be entitled to have his certificate of practice renewed for three years at a time." (emphasis supplied) In our view, the Parliament deliberately included the word 'shall' and the words 'be entitled 'in Section 5(2) and in view of the said language it is difficult to say that there is any residuary discretion vested in the Government at the time of renewal of an application filed by a Notary. The Act contains a provision for removal under Section 10. the Rules also make provisions for an enquiry to be conducted at the time of removal. So far as renewal is concerned, Rule 9 merely speaks of the fee payable at the time of renewal. Even the form of application for renewal is not prescribed. The Act contains a provision for removal under Section 10. the Rules also make provisions for an enquiry to be conducted at the time of removal. So far as renewal is concerned, Rule 9 merely speaks of the fee payable at the time of renewal. Even the form of application for renewal is not prescribed. In our view, so far as the right of renewal is concerned, it is for the Legislature to make appropriate provisions whether there should be a discretion vested in the authority concerned or there should be no discretion. In regard to right of renewal, different statutes provide different conditions. The Motor Vehicles Act, the legislation under the Sales tax' Act and Income tax Act and the various Excise laws, the statutes of the Cinematograph Act and so on, each have various provisions of renewal which are based upon policy decisions of the Government. But once a policy is taken by the express provisions of the Act, as in the present case, it will be difficult to say that there is any power in the Government to pass an administrative order or to make a rule contrary to the provisions of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Section 5(2) is mandatory and the right of renewal is automatic and there is no discretion vested in the Government to restrict the right only to two renewals. 4. The Calcutta High Court had occasion to deal in J. J. Lahiri v. State (AIR 1985 Cal. 140) with a situation where the Government took an executive decision that advocates who cross the age of 70 years will not be treated as entitled for renewal. In that context, a learned Single Judge of that High Court stated that there is nothing in Section 5(2) of the act which -provides that the Government can withhold the licence of a Notary who has the requisite qualifications as laid down in the Act and the Notaries Rules, 1956. It was held that a person who is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a Notary has a legal right to get his licence renewed and he cannot be disqualified on his attaining the age of 70 years. Such a disqualification, the learned Single Judge held, can be made only by a legislation and not by any executive order. It was held that a person who is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a Notary has a legal right to get his licence renewed and he cannot be disqualified on his attaining the age of 70 years. Such a disqualification, the learned Single Judge held, can be made only by a legislation and not by any executive order. The Government has no power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to take any policy decision to introduce such disqualification in view of the express provisions in the Act and the Rules. We respectfully agree with the above view expressed by the Calcutta High Court. We accordingly hold that unless the Act itself is amended, it would not be possible for the Government to contend that there is a residuary discretion given to it under the Act or under the Rules. The only remedy for the situation will be by way of legislation made by the Legislature. Neither the administrative orders nor Rules can go contrary to the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed.