The State Government has the authority to issue circulars indicating its policy and principles for determining the number of Notaries in each district, and the District Judge's function in making recommendations for Notary appointments is more akin to a fact-finding body than a decision-making authority.

K. N. SINGH, J. :- The petitioner is a Notary for the district of Muzaffarnagar appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952. On 14th October, 1970, the State Government issued a circular order directing the District Judges of the State to make recommendations for the appointment of additional Notaries. The Government order stated that the Government was satisfied that the average income of a Notary should not be less than Rs. 300/- per month and on this principle wherever necesary more notaries should be appointed. The order further directed the District Judge to examine the question on the principles enunciated in the order and if necessary to recommend for the appointment of additional hands as Notaries. The District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, on scrutiny found that the average monthly income of the two Notaries working in the district of Muzaffarnagar was Rs. 1300/-per month, he thereupon invited applications for the appointment of Notaries. The petitioner and certain other persons thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the legal validity of the principles laid down in the order of the State Government and the proceedings taken for appointment of additional Notaries. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petitions. The petitioner and other affected persons took up the matter in special appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 18th April, 1972 dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.

2. The District Judge thereupon published the applications in accordance with the rules and invited objections. The petitioner filed objection and made a prayer for the inspection of the memorial made by the applicants. The District Judge did not permit the inspection. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge inviting applications for the appointment of two more Notaries in the district of Muzaffarnagar and also to quash the order dated 17th March, 1972, making recommendation to the State Government for the appointment of two more Notaries. During the pendency of the writ petition the State Government on the recommendations of the District Judge appointed Sarvasri Vedpal Singh Lotiyan, Hari Mohan Mittal and Zamir Uddin Advocates as Notaries for the district of Muzaffarnagar. The petitioner then got the petition amended challenging the appointment of the aforesaid persons as Notaries.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue a general circular directing the District Judge to appoint more Notaries as there was no necessity for the same. He further contended that the competent authority was the District Judge who should have taken initiative in the matter, and the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the District Judges. Certain other ancillary arguments have been raised to impugn the order of the State Government. These very questions were raised by

the petitioner and repelled by a Division Bench of this Court. The Bench observed :-

" The State Government is the appointing authority. Under Rr. 7 and 8 the State Government has to take a decision as to the number of Notaries that may be appointed for any specific area. The State Government can hence validly indicate its policy in the matter of fixation of the number of notaries for each district. It can equally validly indicate the principles which it will take into consideration in determining the commercial importance of an area. The impugned circular cannot be treated as without the authority of law or as an arbitrary exercise of power."

The Bench further repelled the contention that the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue instructions to the competent authority in the matter of making recommendations for appointment as notaries and in coming to that conclusion it referred to R. 8. The Bench further held that