Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 529 (GUJ)

Jagdishchandra Manilal Shah v. State of Gujarat

2009-08-03

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2009
Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petition is filed through I.M. Malik, learned Advocate, but the party-in-person, who is present and is a practising advocate, requested to allow him to make submissions. Permission is granted to the party-in-person. 2. The petitioner, - a practicing advocate, is before this Court challenging the appointment of one Shri Kanubhai Amrutlal Suthar as Notary for Taluka Balasinor. The party-in-person - Shri Jagdishchandra M. Shah submitted that he is practicing since 1980. In support of that, he has invited attention of this Court to Sanad issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat, which is dated 20.6.1980. He submitted that the selected person is holding Sanad since 1998 and thus, he is junior to the petitioner by about 18 years and, therefore, he could have been selected as a Notary, if the Authority had given due weightage to the experience held by the petitioner. 2.1 In support of his submission, the party-in-person placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. Rajni Jain vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others reported in AIR 1995 Delhi 269. The party-in-person invited attention of the Court to page 19, wherein under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 7, the Authority has to take into consideration the various aspects. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 7 reads as under: “(3) In making his recommendation under Sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely;— (a) (b) (c) Whether, having regard to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objections, if any, raised in respect of his appointment as a notary and in case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary. 2.2 Party-in-person also invited attention of the Court to Para 7 of the judgment (Supra), which is reproduced for ready perusal. Para 7 of the judgment, which reads as under: “7. We have already noticed the important functions which a Notary has to perform and these he can do only when he fully qualified and competent. Appointment of a Notary is not an ordinary matter. A great deal of formalities have to be gone into before a person could be appointed as Notary. We have already noticed the important functions which a Notary has to perform and these he can do only when he fully qualified and competent. Appointment of a Notary is not an ordinary matter. A great deal of formalities have to be gone into before a person could be appointed as Notary. Recommendations by the competent authority to the appropriate Government for appointment of a person as a Notary has to be made on the basis of the norms mentioned in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 . . . . . . . . .” 2.3 Party-in-person next relied upon Para 8 of the judgment, which is already reproduced for ready perusal : “8. We are also of the opinion that same consideration could certainly have been given tot he commercial importance of the area while fixing the number of Notaries for each police district. This particularly so when the Gazette Notification also does not show if a Notary so appointed is for whole Delhi or for any particular police district. Rule 8 of the rules also stands violated. We, however, need not refer to other arguments respecting the comparative merit of the candidates who have been appointed or not. It is not for us to lay down any guidelines as to how the process of selection could have been gone into, but we feel perhaps it would have been better to associate a senior Additional District and Sessions Judge during the process of selection. The competent authority must devise proper method to Judge the comparative merits of the candidates as prescribed by Clause (c) of Rule 7(3) of the Rules. “ 3. Party-in-person has made available xerox copy of the sheet, which bears the signature of the Joint Secretary and Competent Authority, Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary and he submitted that this sheet, which contains the information in tabular form, was supplied to him in response to his application made under the Right to Information Act. He made available for perusal a bunch of papers, which was supplied to the party-in-person with forwarding letter dated 15.4.2009. 3.1 Party-in-person made an assertion that the marks which are mentioned against the name of selected candidate, which appears at Serial No. 3 - Shri Kanubhai Amrutlal Suthar, are erased and rewritten. He claimed that initially the marks which are mentioned to be 20 were only 12. 3.1 Party-in-person made an assertion that the marks which are mentioned against the name of selected candidate, which appears at Serial No. 3 - Shri Kanubhai Amrutlal Suthar, are erased and rewritten. He claimed that initially the marks which are mentioned to be 20 were only 12. Party-in-person wanted this Court to look into that sheet with magnifying glass which the Court has declined because the Court is of the opinion that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot undertake this exercise. 4. Party-in-person made available for perusal reply dated 20.7.2009 given by the Deputy Secretary of Law Department, whereby the party-in-person is informed that there is no scope for reconsidering the appointment of Notary on basis of the objection application of the petitioner. 5. It is stated in this reply dated 20.7.2009 that the selected candidate holds the qualification as required under the law. On the basis of which, he is selected for the appointment as Notary for Balasinor Taluka. The letter also states that the same is written in light of an application/letter written by the party-in-person on 19.5.2009 to the leader of opposition. 6. Party-in-person also invited attention of the Court to Annexure D page 14, which is dated 22.5.2009, which is written by the Deputy Secretary, Law Department in reply to two letters of party-in-person dated 16.2.2009 and 27.4.2009. The letter shows that the party-in-person is not selected as Notary. 7. Lastly, the party-in-person submitted that said Shri Kanubhai Amrutlal Suthar is also selected as Additional Public Prosecutor, which may be taken note of, and necessary inferences be drawn that he is an influential person and that he can not get two appointments simultaneously one as Notary for Taluka Balasinor and Another as Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Party-in-person is not able to make out any case for interference of this Court. It is not the case that the person, who is selected is not holding necessary qualifications as prescribed under the law. He is not able to produce any material to show that the Authorities have not considered the aspect of the seniority. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, there is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed.