Advocate's Application For Appointment As Notary Cannot Be Rejected Without Recording Valid Reasons: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that an application submitted by an advocate under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries Rules 1956 for appointment as Notary cannot be summarily rejected without the recording of valid reasons.
The Court allowed an Application filed by an Advocate seeking directions against the Principal Secretary of the Department of Law that rejected the Application to be a Notary.
The Court condemned such rejections, observing that it can unfairly damage the advocate's reputation and competence, a situation that cannot be tolerated.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed, “Court has, in the earlier rounds of litigation, made it luculent that applications of Advocates cannot be rejected summarily under Rule 8(1)(c), but only for valid reasons”.
Advocate Mathew Kuriakose appeared for the Petitioner and Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose appeared for the Respondent.
The case involved a writ petition filed in the High Court, challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's application to be appointed as a Notary in Kozhikode District. The Petitioner asserted that the rejection, based on a large number of applicants, lacks a proper explanation and violates the statutory scheme.
The Court noted that when an advocate applies to be a Notary, there is a presumption of a minimum requirement of expertise and quality. The Court emphasized that rejection should only occur in cases where the applicant lacks the necessary qualifications or if someone else is found more suitable based on clear and verifiable reasons.
The Bench noted that the Petitioner had previously approached the court on this matter, stating that even though the Petitioner was found eligible by the Statutory Interview Board, his application was rejected under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Rules, without providing any reasons. The Court condemned such rejections, observing that it can unfairly damage the advocate's reputation and competence, a situation that cannot be tolerated.
“An Advocate cannot be held unworthy of being appointed as a Notary, without explaining why it is so, since this would indubitably cast deep aspersion on his competence and credentials. This cannot be allowed, whatever be the reason, including large number of candidates or applications”, the Bench noted.
The Court noted that the Respondents are aware that, based on previous litigation, applications of advocates cannot be summarily rejected under Rule 8(1)(c) without valid reasons. Despite this, the Bench noted that the impugned order rejected the Application due to a large number of applicants, without providing a clear and cogent explanation for the decision-making process.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the said rejection order.
Cause Title: P. C. Najeeb v The State Of Kerala (2023:KER:83986)