(1) THE government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs issued a circular dated 31/1/1992 to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/Union Territories inviting their attention to certain administrative difficulties experienced by the Ministry of External Affairs with regard to documents authenticated by Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent 1 Om Prakash Jain - was appointed as a Notary by the government of India and was registered as such under Section 5 of the Act. Respondent 2 - P.Y. Bhagal - was appointed as a Notary by the Delhi Administration and his name was entered in the Register maintained for the same. They contended that by the issuance of the aforesaid circular dated 31/1/1992 their fundamental right was violated, in that, the circular interfered with their right to practice the profession of a Notary under the Act. On behalf of the appellant Union government, this contention was repelled on the ground that the Ministry of External Affairs had been receiving complaints that a large number of certificates duly authenticated by the Notaries were being presented to the Ministry and since the number of Notaries all over the country was in the vicinity of 14,000, it was not possible for the Ministry of External Affairs to maintain their specimen signatures and since most of the Indian citizens going abroad needed authentication of documents by the Ministry for seeking jobs in other countries, complaints of frauds had surfaced and therefore it had become necessary to take precautionary regulatory measures to avoid the same. In order to ensure that authentication was properly and carefully filtered, the circular in question was issued laying down a regulatory procedure, namely, of filtering of such documents through officers specifically designated for that purpose by the State governments/Union Territories with a view to facilitating the Ministry of External Affairs in authenticating the documents. The circular, therefore, desired the government concerned to advise its residents who wish to obtain authentication from the Ministry of External Affairs to follow the said procedure. By subsequent orders, the level of officers who should be specified for authentication purposes in regard to different classes of documents came to be indicated. Respondents 1 and 2 read this circular to mean that Notaries were debarred from authenticating those documents and in their place officers at different levels were specified for authentication purposes. By subsequent orders, the level of officers who should be specified for authentication purposes in regard to different classes of documents came to be indicated. Respondents 1 and 2 read this circular to mean that Notaries were debarred from authenticating those documents and in their place officers at different levels were specified for authentication purposes. The High court accepted this contention and came to the conclusion that the right of the Notaries to authenticate documents conferred under the Act could not be taken away by a mere executive order purporting to have been issued under Article 73 of the Constitution. The High court, therefore, struck down the circular dated 31/1/1992. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been Filed by the Union of India and others. (2) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and read the circular dated 31/1/1992. On a plain reading of the circular, we were inclined to think that the circular did not take away the right of the Notaries to authenticate documents. Since the Ministry of External Affairs came into the picture when it was required to certify or authenticate certain documents for the purposes of presentation in foreign countries by those seeking jobs abroad, it experienced some difficulty because it did not have the specimen signatures of all the Notaries for the purpose of comparison. Complaints that documents were purporting to be authenticated by Notaries were in fact not so authenticated and the signatures of the Notaries were not genuine put the Ministry of External Affairs to caution and in order to ensure that authentication was genuine, it laid down a precautionary regulatory procedure before it would certify the documents. Any authority is entitled to administer caution unto itself and regulate its procedure for the purpose of assuring itself that the document which it authenticates is a genuine one. All that the government desired to do by the circular dated 31/1/1992 was to provide that certain class of documents will be authenticated by the Ministry of External Affairs only if they are authenticated or countersigned by specified officers. If the Ministry of External Affairs thought it necessary to lay down this procedure to ensure that false or fake documents were not authenticated, we find it difficult to see any reason to interfere with such a precautionary measure. If the Ministry of External Affairs thought it necessary to lay down this procedure to ensure that false or fake documents were not authenticated, we find it difficult to see any reason to interfere with such a precautionary measure. In order that there may be no doubt in this behalf we asked the learned counsel for the appellants to state whether or not this was the intention of the government in issuing the circular. She in no uncertain terms stated before us that that was the intent and purpose of the circular. If that be so, the statutory right of the Notaries to authenticate documents is by no means taken away. However, before the Ministry of External Affairs would put its seal and authenticate documents of the class indicated, they would have to be signed by the specified officers to lend assurance as to the genuineness of the documents. We, therefore, do not see any objection to the issuance of the said circular. It in no way offends the statutory rights of the Notaries. (3) FOR the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the High court by allowing this appeal and direct that the writ petition will stand dismissed with no order as to costs.