The petitioners is these two Writ Petitions are Advocates appointed as Notaries under orders issued by the Government. While the petitioner in W.P. (C) 21975 of 2003 is authorised to practice in Revenue District of Ernakulam the petitioner in W.P. (C) 21359 of 2003 is authorised to practice within the Cochin Corporation area. The petitioners are challenging the letter produced as Annexure R1(a) in W.P. (C) 21359 of 2003 prohibiting Notaries from doing notarial work for persons living outside the jurisdiction assigned to the Notary under the certificate of practice issued to him. Another Notary who is authorised to practice in Ambalapuzha Taluk with office at Alappuzha has impleaded as additional respondent in W.P.(C) 21359 of 2003 and opposed the Writ Petition. The immediate provocation to file these petitions is the insistence of the Passport Officer for notarization of documents produced before him subject to the Government Order and press release referred above. I heard both counsel appearing for the petitioners, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Passport Officer, the Government pleader for the State and the counsel appearing for the additional respondent.

2. The Petitioners' contention is that though Notaries appointed only for part of the country or for part of the State, under Section 3 of the Notaries Act 1952 limits only their jurisdiction of functioning but does not affect their right to render service to any client approaching them but living outside the territorial limits of the Notary. According to petitioners Section 8 of the Act does not impose restriction in regard to any client but it only says that every Notary should function within the territory within which he allowed to function. The counsel appearing for the additional respondent submitted that even though specific provision is not there, the intention of the Legislature in providing for appointment of Notaries for a particular area only contemplates the Notary extending the service to residents of that area. The learned Government Pleader supported the letter of the Government submitting that the order should not be taken to be restriction but is issued as the measure to maintain discipline among the Notaries and to ensure that a Notary renders service in the area allotted to him. While the letter of the Law Secretary is consistent with the Act and Rules, I do not think the contents of the Press Release is tenable.

3. Section 3 of the Act states that the Central Government, for the whole or any part of India, and State Government, for the whole or any part of the State, may appoint as notaries and legal practitioners or other persons who possess such qualifications as may be prescribed. Rule 4 (d) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 provides for making of application for appointment as Notary. It provides that the memorial of a person referred to in clause (a) of Rule 3 shall be signed by the applicant and shall be counter signed by two prominent inhabitants of the local area within the applicant intends to practice as a notary. Rule 7 which provides for processing and recommendation of application also mentions about the place whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a notary. Rule 8(1) provides that on receipt of the report of the competent authority, the appropriate Government shall consider the report and shall appoint the Notary in respect of the whole of the area to which it relates or allow the application in respect of any part of the area to which it relates. Therefore an application for appointment of a Notary has to be made with reference to the area where the Notary has to be made with reference to the area where the Notary proposes to practice and the eligibility of the Notary for appointment also is considered with reference to that particular area. In fact clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 8 (1) provide for appointment of notary for the whole area or part of the are