Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

KEDARNATH SHARMA v. STATE

2009-07-22

S.C.SHARMA

body2009
Judgment S.C.Sharma, J. ( 1. ) Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W.P.No.702/2007(S) have been dealt with. ( 2. ) The petitioner before this Court who is a practising advocate has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the appointment of respondents No.5, Munna Lal Dhakad and No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar as notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952 read with the Notaries Rules, 1956 for the area of Kailaras, district Morena by an order dated 22nd December, 2006 (AnnexureP/11) and 04th January, 2007 (AnnexureP/12) respectively. The contention of the petitioner is that in the year 2007, a notification was issued by the State Government on 30th May, 1997 (AnnexureP/2) inviting the applications for appointment of notaries in respect of Kailaras area, District Morena and the petitioner being a permanent resident of Kailaras town and a practising advocate has submitted his application for consideration of his candidature to be appointed as notary. Objections were also invited on 08th June, 1997 and large number of representations were received by the District Judge, Morena. The petitioners further contention is that the respondents No. 1 to 3 without deciding the objections raised by the petitioner and other persons so also, without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1956 appointed Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad and Munna Lal Dhakad as notaries and the petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of the aforesaid persons came up before this Court. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was registered as W.P.No.194 of 1998 and the same was decided by an order dated 21st January, 2000. The contention of the petitioner is that while deciding the aforesaid writ petition in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, this Court has held that the proper procedure was not followed and the District Judge has not given any finding in respect of the experience and knowledge about the commercial laws. The contention of the petitioner is that while deciding the aforesaid writ petition in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, this Court has held that the proper procedure was not followed and the District Judge has not given any finding in respect of the experience and knowledge about the commercial laws. The contention of the petitioner is that this Court in the earlier round of litigation has held that the knowledge can be tested by written test or personal interview arranged by the competent authority under the Act, 1952 read with the Rules, 1956 and also as regards the knowledge of the applicants notarial law, commercial law, drafting of various kinds of testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, affidavits, documents, etc., Thus, in short this Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation and the District Judge, Morena was directed to prepare a fresh panel keeping in view the provisions of the Act, 1952 read with Rules, 1956 enabling the Government to appoint notary. ( 3. ) The petitioner has further contended that being aggrieved by the action of the District Judge in forwarding a panel to the District Magistrate without following the prescribed procedure as provided under rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 appointing Munna Lal Dhakad and Kedar Nath Sharma as notaries ignoring the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998(supra), another writ petition was filed and the same was registered as W.P.No.49 of 2001(Lajja Ram Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and this Court by an order dated 07th September, 2005 has once again held in paragraph 9 that the District Judge while recommending the matter to the State Government has totally ignored the provisions of rule 7 and has also ignored the observations made in paragraph 10 of the earlier passed by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). The matter was again remanded back to the District Judge to draw a panel keeping in view the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 read with paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). The matter was again remanded back to the District Judge to draw a panel keeping in view the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 read with paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). The grievance of the petitioner is that once again the District Judge, Morena has totally ignored the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 and has also not taken into account the observations made in paragraph 10 of W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra) and W.P.No.49 of 2001 (supra) while recommending the panel to the State Government for appointment on the post of Notary. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent / State has appointed the persons out of the panel forwarded by the District Judge and the persons who have been appointed are less meritorious and they were placed below in the panel and a method of pick and choose has been adopted by the State Government while issuing the appointment order as notaries. The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ petition and prayed for quashing appointment of the respondents No.5, Munna Lai Dhakad and No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar as notaries. ( 4. ) A reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government and the appointment of respondents No.5, Munna Lal Dhakad and No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar as notaries has been defended. The stand of the State Government in the reply is that they have acted upon a panel forwarded by the District Judge, Morena and no irregularity of any kind has taken place in the matter of appointment of the respondents No.5 and 6 as notaries. The respondent / State has further stated that the provisions of the Act, 1952 read with Rules, 1956 have not been violated while issuing the aforesaid appointment orders. The learned Deputy Advocate General has argued before this Court that as no procedural irregularity has taken place in the matter and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 5. ) A joint reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.5 and 6. It has been stated in the reply that the present writ petition is not at all maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy available and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Mrs. It has been stated in the reply that the present writ petition is not at all maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy available and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Mrs. Sanjan M.Wig vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, AIR 2005 SCW4535. ( 6. ) The respondents have also stated in the return that they are permanent residents of the place in question and having the requisite qualification for being appointed as notaries. They have further stated that their candidature was rightly considered by the District Judge, Morena and the panel was prepared keeping in view their candidature and as they were more qualified candidates, their names have been rightly forwarded by the District Judge, Morena. The respondents have also stated that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.49 of 2001 (supra) and W.P.No.194 of 1998(supra) have been complied with and the District Judge has recommended and forwarded the matter to the District Magistrate keeping in view the earlier judgments passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The respondents have further stated that the proper procedure as provided under rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 has been followed and it is the domain of the State Government to issue appointment order on the basis of the panel forwarded by the District Judge to the State Government. It has also been argued that the State Government is competent to appoint a person of its choice from the panel as notary. ( 7. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8. ) In the present case, it is not in dispute that this is the third round of litigation in respect of the appointment of notary for the area Kolaras, district Morena. On 30th May, 1997 a notification was published by the State Government for appointment of the notary and the applications were received from the practising advocates for appointment to the post of notary. Objections were invited and were filed and thereafter the matter was forwarded to the State Government for appointment of notaries. Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad and Munna Lai Dhakad were appointed as the notaries and the appointments were subjected to the judicial scrutiny in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). Objections were invited and were filed and thereafter the matter was forwarded to the State Government for appointment of notaries. Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad and Munna Lai Dhakad were appointed as the notaries and the appointments were subjected to the judicial scrutiny in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). This Court while dealing with the appointment of the aforesaid persons in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 has held as under: "7. Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted for appointment of Notary. The power to appoint Notary is with the Central Government or State Government under section 3 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act provides functions of notaries. Section 8 of the Act is reproduced below: - Section 8. Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted for appointment of Notary. The power to appoint Notary is with the Central Government or State Government under section 3 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act provides functions of notaries. Section 8 of the Act is reproduced below: - Section 8. Functions of notaries (1) A notary may do all or any of the following acts by virtue of his Officer, namely :- (a) Verify, authenticate, certify or attest the, execution of any instrument; (b) present any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange for acceptance or payment or demand better security; (c) note or protest the dishonour by non-acceptance or nonpayment of any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange or protest for better security or prepare acts of honour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881) or serve notice of such note or protest; (d) note and draw up ships protest, boats protest or protest relating to demmurage and other commercial matters; (e) administer oath to or take affidavit from any person; (f) prepare bottomry and respondentia bonds, charter parties and other mercantile documents; (g) prepare, attest or authenticate any instrument intended to take effect in any country or place outside India in such form and language as may conform to the law of the place where such deed is intended to operate; , (h) translate and verify the translation of any document from one language into another; (i) any other act which may be prescribed: (2) No act specified in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a notarial act except when it is done by notary under his signature and Official Seal." Thus, from bare perusal of the functions of notaries it is apparent that for appointment as Notary a practising Advocate alone can be appointed as Notary having not less than 10 years practice and he is expected to possess knowledge of various laws in general and Stamp Law with Commercial Law in particular. 8. The Rules have been framed known as the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), which prescribed prqcedure for appointment of Notary. Rule 3 provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment as a notary unless on the date of the application for such appointment he has been practising as a legal practitioner for at least ten years. Rule 3 provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment as a notary unless on the date of the application for such appointment he has been practising as a legal practitioner for at least ten years. Rule 4 provides for application for appointment as a notary. Under Rules 6 action on the application is provided. After the applications are received by the competent authority, if the application is not rejected, notice of the application inviting objections shall be published in the newspaper and, if need be, the competent authority may ascertain from any Bar Council, Bar Association, Incorporated Law or other authority in the area where the applicant proposes to practise the objections, jany, to the appointment of the applicant as notary to be submitted within the time fixed for the purpose. Rule 7 of the rules provides for recommendation of the competent authority Rule 7 of the rules is reproduced below:- 7. Recommendation of the Competent Authority:- (1) The Competent Authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, make a report to the Appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may be rejected. (2) The competent Authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) - regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne. (2) The competent Authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) - regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne. (3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the Competent Authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely:- (a) Whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary; (b) Whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practice and the number of existing notaries practising in the area, it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area; ( 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 the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary; (d) Where the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practioners, whether, having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; and (e) Where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants. Sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules provides that in making the recommendation the competent authority shall have due regard to the matters pertaining to the residence that the applicant resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary and shall consider the knowledge and experience of commercial law of the applicant and nature of objection, if any, raised in respect of appointment as notary. Thus, rule 3(c) provides that before recommending the name the competent authority must adjudge the knowledge and experience of the applicant in commercial law. The competent authority must satisfy itself that the applicant is competent to appointed as notary. The most important feature in the rule is that the applicant has experience and knowledge in the commercial law. He must be acquainted with the functions of a notary as specified in section 8 of the Act and rules 10 and 11 of the rules. The competent authority must satisfy itself that the applicant is competent to appointed as notary. The most important feature in the rule is that the applicant has experience and knowledge in the commercial law. He must be acquainted with the functions of a notary as specified in section 8 of the Act and rules 10 and 11 of the rules. The knowledge can be tested by written test or personal interview arranged by the competent authority concerned as regards the knowledge of applicant about notarial law, commercial laws, drafting of various kinds of testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, affidavits, documents, etc. After the recommendations are made by the competent authority the appropriate Government shall consider the report and shall allow the application in respect of whole or any part of the area to which it relates or reject the application. This Court has considered the question of appointment of notary in the case of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary vs. State of M.P. and others; reported in 1998(1) MPLJ490. Record has been produced. From perusal of record, it is apparent that the District Judge, Morena, who is the competent authority, has not recommended the name after following the procedure laid down in rule 7 of the rules. Rule 7 provides that the competent authority shall determine suitability particularly with regard to the knowledge and experience of commercial law. The competent authority has not ascertained knowledge of the applicants as provided in rule 7(3) (c) of the rules. The recommendations have been made purely on the basis of seniority, which is not proper. The advertisement was for only one post and name of Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad is placed at serial no. 1 on account of years of his practice, whereas the name of Munnalal Dhakad is placed at serial no.8. Thus, the recommendations of names were on the basis of seniority in practice from the date of enrollment and not on the basis of knowledge. Munna Lal Dhakads name was at serial no. 8. In the list, it is found that the Government has appointed Ram Dayal Singh Dhakad, who was at serial no. 1 and also recommended the appointment of Munna lal Dhakad/respondent No.4 by creating an additional post. No reasons have been assigned for ignoring the candidates, who were placed at serial no. 2 to 7 in the list sent by District Judge. 1 and also recommended the appointment of Munna lal Dhakad/respondent No.4 by creating an additional post. No reasons have been assigned for ignoring the candidates, who were placed at serial no. 2 to 7 in the list sent by District Judge. Even otherwise, the procedure for appointment of notary was not followed. Since District Judge, who is a competent authority, was bound to recommend the names according to merits after ascertaining the knowledge about commercial law and other Acts and competence of person to function as notary, the recommendations were not in accordance with rule 7 of the rules and there is no reason for appointment of respondent no. 4 out of the names recommended. No appointment can be made in an arbitrary manner or on the whims of the officer and the person under the Government. The appointment should be strictly on merits. No reasons have been assigned for deviating from the list of District Judge in appointment of respondent no. 4. In the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra), the appointment of respondent No. 4 is quashed and it is directed that the panel be prepared by District Judge according to merits of each candidate and recommend the names strictly according to merit and not on the basis of seniority. The competent authority shall also specifically clarify that the person belonging to local area and resident of Kailaras and is practising at Kailaras should alone be given-preference for appointment as notary at Kailaras. The person not residing at Kailaras or practising at Kailaras should not be recommended. The State Government shall then pass orders on the merit list prepared by District Judge. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with the direction to competent authority to examine the merits of each applicant and recommend the names according to merit of each candidates." ( 9. ) This Court while deciding the aforesaid case keeping in view the provisions of the rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 has arrived at a conclusion that a person who is appointed as notary must have experience and knowledge in commercial law. He must be acquainted with the functions of a notary as specified in section 8 of the Act and rule 10 and 11 of the rules. He must be acquainted with the functions of a notary as specified in section 8 of the Act and rule 10 and 11 of the rules. It has also been observed in the aforesaid judgment that the knowledge can be tested by written test or personal interview by the competent authority concerned as regards the knowledge of the applicant in regard to various functions to be carried out as notary. This Court has also held that after recommendations are made by the competent authority, the appropriate Government shall consider the report and shall allow the application in respect of whole or part of the area to which it relates or reject the application. ( 10. ) After the judgment was delivered by this Court wherein the appointment of am Dayal Singh Dhakad and Munna Lal Dhakad were quashed, the District Judge as directed by this Court has considered the practising advocates who have applied for the post of notary strictly on the basis of merit and again a fresh panel was recommended, by the District Judge, Morena and on the basis of the recommendation of the panel, one Munna Lal Dhakad and Kedar Nath Sharma were appointed as the notaries. The appointments were again subjected to judicial scrutiny in W.P.No.49 of 2001 (supra). ( 11. ) The appointments of Munna Lal Dhakad and Kedar Nath Sharma were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.49 of 2001 (supra) and the matter was remanded back to the District Judge, Morena. This Court while remanding the matter has also observed that the respondents therein shall proceed to take action in the matter of appointment of notaries afresh from the stage of calling of the recommendations from the District Judge as required under rule 7 and it was further observed that the District Judge, Morena shall forward the recommendations keeping in view the requirements of rule 7 and the observations made by this Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). ( 12. ) Thereafter, the matter was reconsidered by the District Judge, Morena and the appointments were made on the basis of the recommendation by the State Government by which the respondent No.5, Munna Lal Dhakad and the respondent No.6, Shyam Sunder Goyanar were appointed as the notaries. ( 13. ) The original record relating to the appointments of the notaries maintained by the District and Sessions Judge. ( 13. ) The original record relating to the appointments of the notaries maintained by the District and Sessions Judge. Morena has been produced before this Court. This Court has carefully gone through the proceedings which took place in the matter. The District Judge, Morena while preparing the panel as directed by this Court has recommended the names of 10 advocates which are as under: (a) Shri Ravindra Bharadwaj (b) Shri Kedarnath Sharma (c) Shri Munna Lai Dhakad (d) Shri Ashok Kumar Solanki (e) Shri Shyam Sunder (f) Shri Soneram Dhakad (g) Shri Jagadish Dhakad (h) Shri Siyaram Gupta (i) Shri Ramniwas Gupta (j) Shri Banwarilal Dhakad. ( 14. ) The aforesaid panel was prepared on 02nd November, 2006 and the same was forwarded to the State Government, the District Judge has considered the objections raised in the matter in respect of the aforesaid persons. However, the minutes of the panel does not reflect whether the applicants have knowledge and experience of commercial law and various other aspects as detailed in rule 7(3) of the Rules, 1956. The District Judge while preparing the panel has totally ignored the observations of this Court in the first round of litigation as contained in paragraph 10 of W.P.No.194 of 1998 (supra). Not only this, the panel has been prepared once again ignoring the provisions of the rule 7 of the Rules, 1956. ( 15. ) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the panel was prepared by the District Judge ignoring the provisions of rule 7 sub-rule (e) of the Rules, 1956 which reads as under: "(e) Where application from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants." From a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is evident that a comparative chart has to be prepared by the District Judge and the panel so prepared should be on the basis of the merits. ( 16. ) In the present case, the respondent / District Judge has not prepared a panel as per merits nor the panel has been prepared as per the directions of the Court passed in W.P. No. 49 of 2001 and W.P. No. 194 of 1998. ( 17. ( 16. ) In the present case, the respondent / District Judge has not prepared a panel as per merits nor the panel has been prepared as per the directions of the Court passed in W.P. No. 49 of 2001 and W.P. No. 194 of 1998. ( 17. ) At this stage, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the State Government has the discretionary power to appoint a person from the panel so forwarded by the District Judge as per choice. There is no dispute with regard to the power of the State Government to appoint a notary but the same cannot be exercised in a discriminatory manner. The power so vested in the State Government has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the panel forwarded by the District Judge. The panel forwarded by the learned District Judge in the present case is certainly not in consonance with earlier directions passed by this Court. ( 18. ) This Court in the case of Ayaz Ahmad Khan and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2009(2) MPHT245 in paragraphs 15 to 26 has held as under: Now coming to the merits of the case. The Notaries Act, 1952, has been enacted to regulate the profession of Notaries who are appointed for all recognized notorial purposes. Section 8 of the Act deals with the functions of the notaries which are wide and important in nature. The Notaries Rules, 1956, have been framed under the Act, Rule 3 prescribes qualification for appointment as a Notary. Rule 4 provides for making an application for appointment as a Notary in the form of memorial. Rule 6 provides for preliminary action on the application by the Competent Authority which includes satisfaction by the authority about qualification, earlier rejection of the application etc. and inviting objection from the Bar Association or Bar Council etc. Rule 7 prescribes the detailed procedure to be followed for making recommendations by the Competent Authority and reas as under:- 7. Rule 6 provides for preliminary action on the application by the Competent Authority which includes satisfaction by the authority about qualification, earlier rejection of the application etc. and inviting objection from the Bar Association or Bar Council etc. Rule 7 prescribes the detailed procedure to be followed for making recommendations by the Competent Authority and reas as under:- 7. Recommendation of the Competent Authority:- (1) The Competent Authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, make a report to the Appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may be rejected. (2) The competent Authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne. (3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the Competent Authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely: - (a) Whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary; (b) Whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practice and the number of existing notaries practising in the area, it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area; ( 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 the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary; (d) Where the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practioners, whether, having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; and (e) Where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants. It is worth noting that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 the Competent Authority is required to hold such enquiry as he thinks fit. It is worth noting that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 the Competent Authority is required to hold such enquiry as he thinks fit. The Competent Authority after receiving the objections, if any, is required to make a report to the appropriate Govt, and the Competent Authority is required to make a recommendation either allowing the application for the whole or any part of the area to which application relates or for rejecting it. Sub-rule (3) requires the matters which are to be taken into consideration while making the recommendation under sub- rule (1). Clause (3) of sub-rule (3) requires the authority to give due regard to the fact whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending. The report sent by the Competent Authority under Rule 7 is considered by the State Govt, under Rule 8 and the action on the report as prescribed in the rule is taken. The State had issued the circular dated 17-12-1998 stating that before sending the memorial for appointment, full enquiry will be made Special emphasis was made to comply with the requirement of Rule 7 and making the recommendation of the competent candidates. By this circular the judgment of this Court reported in Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra) was required to be considered while making recommendation. Under Rule 7(1) on receipt of the application forms and objections the Competent Authority is required to hold appropriate enquiry then he is required to make a report to the appropriate Govt, and in that report he is required to make a recommendation and the recommendation should be either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may rejected. This Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra), has considered the scope of Rule 7 of the Notary Rules and has held that the Competent Authority is required to make endorsement regarding knowledge and experience of each applicant and their suitability for appointment. In the absence of any material before the State Govt, and without determining the comparative suitability of the applicants, no appointment can be made. This Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra), after noting Rule 7 held that:- 11. In the absence of any material before the State Govt, and without determining the comparative suitability of the applicants, no appointment can be made. This Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra), after noting Rule 7 held that:- 11. After the applications are received, the Competent Authority, that is, District Judge, should not act as a post- office and forward the papers to the State Govt. The Competent Authority is bound to follow the procedure laid - down in Rule 7 of the Rules. When there are more man one applications then the Competent Authority should have made recommendations for appointment of notary indicating the name of applicant, who is more suitable than other applicants. From the file it appears that enquiry as provided under Rule 7 (3) has not been conducted. There is no endorsement by the District Judge regarding knowledge and experience of each applicant and their suitability for appointment. The notaries are required to perform a responsible job and they cannot be appointed in an arbitrary manner. The notary performs very important functions and his actions are having for reaching effects. He must have sound knowledge of the laws referred to in Rule 7 and in respect of Notaries Act, Oaths Act, Stamp Duty, onveyance and various types of documents and local laws. A confidential enquiry in respect of honesty and itegrity before the licence is issued, should be held to determine the suitability fo the applicant to hold such a creditable post of responsibility and credibility. The Competent Authority should keep in mind and send the recommendations for appointment of notary after receiving the applications. In the present case, the Competent Authority has not sent recommendations. 12. In the absence of any material before the State Govt, and without determining the question as to person who is more suitable for appointment, no appointment could be made. From going through the record, it is apparent that the appointments have been made in an arbitrary manner without following the procedure of Rule 7 (3) (e) of the Rules. 12. In the absence of any material before the State Govt, and without determining the question as to person who is more suitable for appointment, no appointment could be made. From going through the record, it is apparent that the appointments have been made in an arbitrary manner without following the procedure of Rule 7 (3) (e) of the Rules. Same issue came up before this Court in the matter of Suryakant Chandrakar (supra), wherein this Court after noting Rule 7 held that:- 10.......A plain reading of Rule 7(1) of the Rules makes it clear that the Competent Authority is required to make recommendation either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may be rejected under Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the Competent Authority while making recommendation is required to give due regard to various aspects enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). After the report of the Competent Authority is required to consider the same and make appointment of Notaries. The State Govt, while making appointment of a Notary is required to consider the report. Here, in the present case, the Competent Authority has stated in clear terms that he did not make any recommendation. From the letter of Competent Authority dated 2nd March, 1998, it is apparent that he has just forwarded the memorials of 7 persons including respondent Nos.3 to 5 along with the other documents to the State Govt, for appropriate action. The original records have been produced before me by Mr. Ghildiyal and a perusal thereof also does not show that the Competent Authority had made any recommendation as required under Rule 7 of the Rules. Non-rejection of the memorials under Rule 6 of the Rules and forwarding the same along with the documents of the respective memorialists, in my opinion, cannot be construed as recommendation of the Competent Authority. He has thus failed to discharge his statutory obligation. That being so, appointment of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 as Notaries suffers from procedural ultra vires and cannot be allowed to stand. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra). Supreme Court also in the matter of S.D. Chaddha Vs. State of UP. That being so, appointment of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 as Notaries suffers from procedural ultra vires and cannot be allowed to stand. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra). Supreme Court also in the matter of S.D. Chaddha Vs. State of UP. And others, (2003) 12 SCC119, has declined to approve the appointment made in violation of Rule 7. In the present case, the reports which were sent by the respondent No.4 for Tehsil Barhi, Rithi, Dheemarkheda, Bohriband, Badwara and Katni in terms of Rule 7 to the State Govt, are available in the original record submitted by the Counsel for the State. A perusal of these reports indicate that the respondent No.4 in these reports had only noted the name, date of birth, caste, place of residence, registration No. and year and number 6f years of practice of the candidates. The respondent No.4 only by noting the aforesaid factual details had forwarded the report to the State Govt. In the reports in terms of Rule 7 (1) there is no recommendation by the respondent No.4 for accepting the application of any candidate or rejecting it. There is also no recommendation to accept the application of any candidate for the whole of the area or any part of the area to which the application relates. Rule 7(1) requires the Competent Authority to make a recommendation which denotes a positive act of application of mind on the relevant factors enumerated in Rule 7 and a conclusion by the Competent Authority in respect of each candidate for accepting or rejecting the application or accepting the application for whole or any part of the area. In terms of Rule 7(3) (c) the Competent Authority is required to consider the 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 the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice and record a conclusion if the applicant is fit to be appointed as a Notary. The report does not indicate that any of the factors required to be considered by the Competent Authority under Rule 7 (3) have been considered. The report does not indicate that any of the factors required to be considered by the Competent Authority under Rule 7 (3) have been considered. In the report, no finding as regards the fitness of the candidate for being appointed as Notary as required by Rule 7(3) (c ) has been recorded. The report has been prepared completely ignoring the requirements of Rule 7 of the Rules and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra) and Suryakant Chandrakar (supra). It is worth noting that it is this report which is considered by the State under Rule 8 to accept or reject the application. Since the report itself does not contain any material in support of the fitness of the candidates to be appointed as Notary, therefore, sufficient material was not available before the State Govt, to take a fair decision to accept or reject any application under Rule 8. 25. A perusal of the original record indicates that all the names, which were forwarded by the respondent No.4. were placed before the Law Minister with certain notings by the Additional Secretary, Law. The Law Minister picked up the names of respondent Nos.5 to 15 for appointment as Notary in Kami, Barhi, Rithi, Dheemarkheda, Bohriband and Badwara. There is nothing on record to show on what basis these names were picked up. Rules nowhere prescribe for appointment by draw of lots. Thus, it is found that the concerned respondents have been selected in complete violation of Rule 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis it is held that respondent Nos.5 to 15 have been selected for appointment as Notaries in violation of Rule 7. The report in the form of panel which was forwarded by the respondent No.4 to the State Govt, dated 25-1-2008 was prepared without complying with the requirements of Rule 7. Therefore, the reports dated 25-1-2008 sent by the respondent No.4 in respect of Tehsil Barhi, Rithi and Dheemarkheda, Bohriband, Badwara and Kami are set aside. Any decision taken by the State Govt, in pursuance to the said report and any order issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 15 in pursuance to the selection made on the basis of the aforesaid report is also set aside. Any decision taken by the State Govt, in pursuance to the said report and any order issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 15 in pursuance to the selection made on the basis of the aforesaid report is also set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority to send the fresh report to the Government after complying with the provisions contained in Rule 7 keeping in mind the law settled in the judgments noted above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No orders as to costs." ( 19. ) Keeping in view the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ayaz Ahmad Khan and others (supra), a perusal of the minutes of the file relating to the panel in the present case reflects that the District Judge, Morena has not followed the provisions of law as enumerated in rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 and he has totally ignored the earlier judgments delivered by this Court in W.P.No. 194 of 1998 and W.P.No.49 of 2000 (supra). The findings so recorded by the District Judge does not reflect about the applicants knowledge relating to notarial law, commercial law, drafting of various kinds of testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, affidavits, documents, etc. The file also reveals that certain objections were received and they have been decided. The panel so prepared by the District Judge is said to be based upon merits though no reason has been assigned in respect of the placement of the advocates in the merit list / panel and, therefore, the District Judge has not followed the prescribed procedure as per the remand orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998 and WP.No.49 of 200! (supra) and the panel so prepared by the District Judge deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. ( 20. ) As this Court has quashed the panel so prepared by the District Judge, Morena and consequently, the appointment of the respondent No. 5, Munna Lai Dhakad vide order dated 22ftd December, 2006 (AnnexufeP/1 ) and the respondent No.6; dated 04th November, 2007 (AnnexureP/11) Shyam Sunder Goyankar are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Morena. ( 21. The matter is remanded back to the District Judge, Morena. ( 21. ) ; Resultantly, the petitions are allowed in part and disposed of with the following directions: (a) The respondent / State shall proceed in the matter afreshfrom the stage of calling of the recommendations as required under rule 7of the Rmes, 1956; (b) The District Judge, Morena shall prepare a panel keeping in view the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules, 195 6 read with paragraph 10 of judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.No.194 of 1998 (i.e., the first round of litigation). ; (c) The State Government on the basis- of the recommendations received from the District Judge, Morena shall issue an appointment order as provided under rule 8 of the Rules, 1956. (d) The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( 22. ) With the aforesaid, writ petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.