The failure to provide a reasoned order on an application for notary appointment violates statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. A short issue which arises for consideration in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondent no.3- The Collector, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli was correct in not passing a reasoned order on the petitioner’s application for appointment as a notary public.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass:-

On 29 January 2025, respondent no. 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of notary for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. In pursuance of such advertisement, petitioner made an application dated 3 February 2024 which is stated to be in the prescribed form. Such application was accepted and the petitioner was called for interview by the Interview Board on 21 February 2024.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that when seven notaries were selected whose appointments were notified vide notification dated 12 March 2024, the petitioner presumed that the petitioner’s application had either remained to be decided or was rejected. It is the petitioner’s case that as no reasons were communicated to the petitioner. It is contended that considering the provisions of law it could not be that the petitioner’s application suffered a rejection. It is also the petitioner’s case that there cannot be an automatic rejection of the petitioner’s application as any rejection of the application would require reasons to be furnished. This more particularly considering the Notaries Rules, 1956. In supporting such contentions, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Nandkishor S/o Gangaram Dhudkekar vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 Mah LJ 349.

5. On the other hand Mr. Venegaokar, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition supporting the action of the respondents. It is hiscontention that the law would not require any reasons to be furnished, as already the selection has been made and seven candidates have been selected/notified. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the petition.

Analysis

6. On the aforesaid premise, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset we find that appointment of notaries is governed by the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”). Section 3 of the Act provides for power to appoint notaries is conferred with the Central Government as also the State Government. Section 3 read thus: -

“3. Power to appoint notaries.—The Central Government, for the whole or any part of India, and any State Government, for the whole or any part of the State, may appoint as notaries any legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed.”

7. By virtue of the provisions of section 15 of the Notaries Act, the Central Government has framed the Notaries Rules 1956. Under such Rules, Rule 4 deals with application for appointment as a notary, Rule 6 provides for preliminary action on such application to be taken, Rule 7 provides for recommendation of the competent authority, Rule 7A provides for constitution of the Interview Board, Rule 8 provides for appointment of notary. Such procedure as contemplated under these rules is required to be followed for making the appointment of a notary. The relevant rules are required to be noted which read thus :-

“4. Application for appointment as a notary.—(1) A person may make an application for appointment as a notary (hereinafter called "the applicant") online in Form I or Form il as applicable, addressed to such officer or authority (hereinafter referred to as the "competent authority") of the appropriate Government as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate in this behalf.

(2) The memorial shall be drawn by a person referred to in clause (a) of rule 3 in accordance with Form I and by a person referred to in clauses (b) an