Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 568 (KAR)

S. N. MURTHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-09-05

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2007
( 1 ) WRIT petition by certain disgruntled advocates who are not selected to be appointed as notaries, though they had made applications for such purpose. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are persons who had responded to a notification calling for applications to appoint notaries in certain taluks of hassan district in terms of the notification dated 24-6-2005, copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. ( 3 ) WHILE it appears that the petitioners were not successful in their attempt, respondents 3 to 6 have been appointed and it is questioning the legality of the appointment of respondents 3 to 6 the present writ petition. ( 4 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged several contentions principal among which are that the notification had not been duly published in the official gazette inviting objections; that it was not even published at the office of the Bar Council or bar Association; that the petitioners were keen of filing objections in respect of several other applicants whose antecedents etc. , were not very conducive and that at any rate respondents 3 to 6 are not persons who can be appointed as notaries; that the competent authority has violated the statutory provisions of the rule 6 (2) (a), (b) and Rule 7 of the Notaries rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) and therefore the appointment order issued in terms of order dated 24-12-2005 (copy at Annexure-C) deserves to be quashed. ( 5 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are represented by Sri H. T. Narendra Prasad, learned government Pleader. It is averred, inter alia, that the requirement of the publication in the official gazette inviting objections, which was in vogue earlier in terms of Rule 6 (2) (a) of the Rules has been done away by omitting this rule with effect from 8-7-1997 and therefore there is no requirement of publication for the purpose of inviting objections and the ground urged based on this rule does not merit consideration. ( 6 ) WHILE Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even without Rule 6 (2) (a), the authority should have conducted an enquiry in terms of rule 7 even with or without a provision in terms of Rule 6 (2) (a) of the Rules; that it was incumbent on the part of the competent authority to have published the names of the applicants at least in the offices or premises of Bar Council or Bar Association and other local authorities in the area and even this has not been done. ( 7 ) THIS argument is countered by the learned government pleader by submitting that it is in the discretion of the authority to elicit better information in respect of the applicants from such bodies and it is not mandatory and verification of this nature would assume importance only if the competent authority was of the view that there was need for further information and the competent authority verifying all the applicants through other bodies does not arise. ( 8 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules is also not followed, particularly one of the holding enquiry wherein the applicants should have been given an opportunity to make their representations in respect of the objections if any received by the competent authority not mandatory. ( 9 ) THIS again is an argument which proceeds on the premise that the enquiry is must and should. The enquiry will be held only if there is an issue which is required to be resolved. The issue may arise only if an applicant's credentials are either doubted by the competent authority himself or if there are any objections to the candidature of the particular applicant and based on such objections, an application is to be weeded off and persons who are likely to be affected are to be given an opportunity to defend the same and in this context an enquiry may be conducted. Now with the omission of Rule 6 (2) (a) of the rules, the possibility of objections being received has been done away with and therefore an enquiry is also not necessary even if rule 7 should have provided for holding one. Now with the omission of Rule 6 (2) (a) of the rules, the possibility of objections being received has been done away with and therefore an enquiry is also not necessary even if rule 7 should have provided for holding one. If for any reason the competent authority deems it fit to hold an enquiry, perhaps he may hold, but there is no compulsion on his part to hold an enquiry. Not holding an enquiry would not amount to violation or deviation from the procedure as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules. ( 10 ) THOUGH learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that selections are not objective; that it is for other considerations. no material is placed before the Court nor can be presumed or inferred from the available materials. ( 11 ) NONE of the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner and the grounds succeed as the grounds are not even tenable on an examination of the provisions of the Rules. No merit in this writ petition and writ petition is accordingly dismissed.