Judgment :- ManjulaChellur, AG. CJ. 1. Heart the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel representing party respondents. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein was appointed as a Notary Public as per Ext.P1 dated 03.03.2006. However, he could not get certificate of practice as indicated in Section 9 of the Notaries Act, 1952 on account of some controversy with regard to number of Notaries who could have been enrolled in the State of Kerala. However, the complaint against the respondent was that before he could be given certificate of practice, he had displayed a board declaring himself as Notary in bold letters, therefore it contravened Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, his application came to be rejected. It is not in dispute that prior to this writ petition, he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.29421 of 2006, wherein the learned Judge gave the following directions: “4. In WPC.29421/06, the petitioner has a case that he was appointed as Notary but certificate of practice has not been issued. The stand taken by the Government is that there is no final disposal of his application and certificate has not been issued because the total number of notaries practicing were in excess of the permitted number. The discussion undertaken above applies to the case of the petitioner also. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the petitioner’s application for appointment as Notary and issue a certificate of practice if he is otherwise eligible. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” By reading paragraph 4 of the earlier judgment, what we understand is, in order to take logical end to the dispute, the Court directed the Government to consider the application and dispose of the matter, issuing certificate of practice if he is otherwise eligible. 3. According to the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, nothing in the Statue either the Notaries Act or the rules framed under the Notaries Act would come in the way of issuing a certificate of practice in his favour as he has not conducted anything which would amount to misconduct and even allegation of display of the Board would not attract any of the provisions under the enactment. The learned Judge, after referring to Ext.P6 cancelling appointment of the petitioner as Notary proceeded to hold that Ext.P6 is not in accordance with the rules contemplated: therefore, cancellation of enrollment as Notary is unjustified. Accordingly, Ext.P6 came to be quashed. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before us in this Appeal. 4. According to the learned Government Pleader, though the concerned officer signed the order of appointment, it was officially not notified, in other words, not gazetted. But the fact remains Ext.P1 was received by the party respondent. As per Ext.P1, we note that apart from just singing the Notification, it was forwarded to different Departments including the respondent, under the signature of Section Officer concerned. This is how, the respondent got a copy of the order. Even otherwise, the contents of Ext.P6 refers to Sec.9 of the Notaries Act, 1952. At paragraph 4 of the order, they presumed that he was practicing as a Notary Public without a valid certificate of practice which amounts to misconduct. The party respondent has not at all denied displaying of such board. But he has categorically denied practicing as a Notary Public as such. Section 9 of the Notaries Act reads as under: “9. Bar of practice without certificate:--(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall practice as a notary or to any notarial act under the official seal of a notary unless he holds a certificate of practice in force issued to him under section 5. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the presentation of any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange for acceptance or payment by the clerk of a notary acting on behalf of such notary. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall, until the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act, apply to any such person as is referred to in the proviso to clause(d) of section 2. Provided that in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir the said period of two years shall be computed from the date on which this Act comes into force in that State.” 5. A reading of Section 9 clearly indicates that no person is allowed to do any notarial act under the official seal of a notary unless he holds a certificate of practice in force issued to him under Section 5. A reading of Section 9 clearly indicates that no person is allowed to do any notarial act under the official seal of a notary unless he holds a certificate of practice in force issued to him under Section 5. One could understand the justification in the allegation made by the appellant if, even without Ext.P1, on mere application being forwarded for appointment as a notary public, if the party respondent had displayed his name as notary public. After serving with a copy of Ext.P1, in all probability anticipating issuance of certificate of practice, if a candidate were to prepare himself to discharge his duties as a notary public without actually and factually discharging any such duties of a notary public, will it amount to misconduct? Question of misconduct would come into picture only if there is appointment and issuance of a certificate of practice to a person, who is appointed as a notary public. In the case on hand, it is a Situation where only appointment as a notary public was sent to the respondent, but he was not yet given the certificate of practice. It is also a fact that his name was not yet included in the list of notary public on account of some dispute with regard to the required numbers of notary public to be appointed. If he were to discharge the duties of a notary public without the certificate of registration, then the question of removing him from the panel or cancelling the certificate of practice already issued, by removing his name from the register maintained under Section 4 would come into force. Here is a case, mere board was displayed without any act of notary. This display of the board is also after Ext.P1. Under legitimate expectation of issuance of certificate of practice, if he had displayed his name as notary public without any function as a notary, definitely it cannot be a misconduct. 6. The learned Government Pleader alternatively contended that rule 7 of the Notary Rules would come in the way of approval of the application and appointment of the respondent as a notary public. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as under “7. 6. The learned Government Pleader alternatively contended that rule 7 of the Notary Rules would come in the way of approval of the application and appointment of the respondent as a notary public. Rule 7 of the Rules reads 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 person 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 retard 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 practicing 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 objection, 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 practitioners, 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.” A reading of the rule 7 manifestly makes it clear that recommendation and approval of the application is contemplated under Rule 7. The case of the party respondent was already approved and even notification was issued, as stated above, as per Ext.P1. The case of the party respondent was already approved and even notification was issued, as stated above, as per Ext.P1. Therefore, Rule 7 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. It is relevant to mention Section 12 of the Act as well, which contemplates penalty for falsely representing to be a notary etc., which reads as under. “12. Penalty for falsely representing to be a notary etc--- Any person who--- (a) falsely represents that he is a notary without being appointed as such, or (b) practices as a notary or does any notarial act in contravention of section 9, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to one year or with fine, or with both”. Sec.12(a) is the proper section that can be looked into based on the facts of the present case. Section 12(a) refers to false representation as a notary without being appointed as such. In the present case, he was appointed as per Ext.P1 and therefore, question of falsely representing himself as a notary would not arise. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no justification for the appellants to pass an order under Ext.P6. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot take protection either under section 9 of the Notaries Act or under Rule 7 of the Rules. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by quashing Ext.P6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.