1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the extent it orders withdrawal of the Certificate of Practice issued to the petitioner as Notary in Kollam Taluk in Kollam District and for other consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioner, a practising lawyer in the courts situated in Kollam District, submitted Ext.P1 memorial dated 27/10/2000 before the 2nd respondent, seeking appointment as Notary, under the Notaries Act, 1952, for Kollam Taluk. Based on Ext.P1 application the 2nd respondent conducted an inspection and submitted Ext.P2 inspection report reporting that the petitioner is eligible to get appointment as Notary having jurisdiction over Kollam Municipal area. In Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent recommended that, the petitioner may be allowed to appear before the Interview Board. Pursuant to Ext.P2 the petitioner was interviewed by the Interview Board on 24/2/2011 and according to the petitioner the Board has recommended that he is competent to be appointed as Notary. On 3/3/2011 the petitioner remitted Rs.1,000/- vide Chalan No.94 of the Sub Treasury, Kollam, towards fee for issuing Certificate of Practice as a Notary.

3. Ext.P3 is the relevant extract of the File Note concerning the appointment of Notaries by the 2nd respondent. Since the Model Code of Conduct of the Election Commission was in force, it was noted in Ext.P3 File Note as follows:

“If the Government intends to make any further fresh appointment, the concurrence of the Election Commission is required”.

In the said File Note, the Minister concerned remarked as follows:

“Certificate/notification may be issued after concurrence from the Election Commission.”

4. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, which was returned by the Chief Electoral Officer, on 16/5/2011, as the Model Code of Conduct was lifted on 14/5/2011. After few months, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 communication dated 24.12.2011 of the 2nd respondent, stating that, order dated 28/2/2011 made on his application for appointment as Notary has been reviewed by the Government on 8/11/2011 and it stands withdrawn along with similar other applications, as there was no vacancy on the date of the order of appointment. The petitioner was further informed that, his application is kept pending in the Department. The chalan receipt dated 3/3/2011 for Rs.1,000/- was also returned to him along with Ext.P4.

5. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent by notification dated 31/8/2012 permitted the 2nd respondent to appoint 1000 Notaries in the State of Kerala. Immediately knowing about the said notification enhancing the maximum number of vacancies of Notaries in the State, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 21/11/2012 before the 2nd respondent, requesting the Government to appoint him as Notary. It is also the case of the petitioner that, a similarly situated applicant seeking appointment as Notary had approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.23864 of 2011 and this Court, while disposing the matter vide Exhibit P6 judgment, directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioner in that Writ Petition and also that of the party respondent for appointment as Notary in the concerned Taluk and pass appropriate orders on the basis of merit and seniority, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. According to the petitioner, in obedience to Ext.P6 judgment the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23864 of 2011 was given appointment as Notary in Kottarakkara Taluk in Kollam District. Pointing out the above aspects, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 29/8/2013 before the 2nd respondent and thereafter approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking various reliefs.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent contending that on the basis of the recommendation of