Judgment 1. On 16.7.2004 after going through the documents which are at page 12 to 15 of this writ application the Court noticed that as many as four affidavits sworn by Ajanta Arya, Nishikant Arya, Shashikant Arya and Ravikant Arya were attested by the Notary Public Mr. Devanand Prasad though the said affidavits were not even signed by the deponents. Being shocked by the fact that unsigned affidavits were attested by the Notary Public this Court issued notice to Mr. Devanand Prasad to show cause as to why for the misconduct on his part action be not proposed against him and the State Government be not required to consider cancellation of his license. Mr. Devanand Prasad is present in person. His counsel is also present, he has filed his show cause. The fact that the unsigned affidavits were attested by him is not disputed. The explanation coming forth from his side is that when the affidavits were placed before him for attestation he required the counsel to get the signatures of the deponents, thereafter when he again returned back to his seat after finishing some of the Court work he found a bunch of documents lying on his table, which also contained the said affidavits, which were to be affirmed and declared before him. The Notary Public in pressure of work thought that the papers placed before him for affirmation and declaration were also in order and he accordingly put his signatures on the said documents. It is to be seen from the legal position that an affidavit can not be attested simply by its placing before the Notary Public or any authority who has an authority under the law to attest the affidavit. The person who is pledging his oath has to be present before the Notary or such an authority and the Notary or such person are required to enquire from the deponent that the contents of such affidavits are true and whether he has affixed his signatures. If such a procedure is followed then the question of not noticing the absence of the signature would not arise. The Notary has simply said that bunch of the documents were lying on his table which were already bearing the seal of his office and under the pressure of the work he started attesting the documents. I am unable to understand the defence of the Notary. The Notary has simply said that bunch of the documents were lying on his table which were already bearing the seal of his office and under the pressure of the work he started attesting the documents. I am unable to understand the defence of the Notary. A Notary is not required simply to affix his signatures on a document which is required to be notarised. He is required to look into the documents, see that the document is properly executed, verify the contents and signatures from the deponent and only then he can affix his signature as proof of his attestation. The submissions made by Notary is per-se false. Even if it is accepted to be correct it would show that the Notary is not fit to discharge his official functions because he is simply affixing his signatures to notarise the affidavits without observing the legal requirements. 2. Let a copy of order dated 16.7.2004 and this order along with photostat copies of those four affidavits be sent to the State Government with the recommendations that the license issued in favour of Mr. Devanand Prasad because of this misconduct deserves to be cancelled. The Government would be obliged to take an action on this recommendation within 15 days from the date of receipt of all these documents. 3. The petitioner is before this Court as his application for appointment on compassionate ground is not being considered by the respondent Board. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if a duly constituted application annexed with duly executed and attested affidavit is filed and all other documents are submitted then within a period of two months they will pass a final order on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner is free to make an application as proposed by the respondents. The petition is disposed of.