1. The petitioner has filed this petition against non-consideration of his name for appointment of notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The State Government instead of filing return produced the record of selection of notaries. Respondents No.3 to 5 also relied upon the record and argued the case.

3. The applications were invited for appointment of notaries in the district of Bhind by District & Sessions Judge, Bhind. Only one name was sent. However, the Law Minister vide order dated 20.9.96 directed that panel of the lawyers be placed before him. Thereafter, applications were invited and II Advocates including the petitioner applied for appointment as notary under rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Thereafter a notification was published in Official Gazette inviting objections under rule 6 of the Rules.

4. After no objections were raised, the District & Sessions Judge, Bhind being competent authority, for Warded all the application forms to the State Government without recording any finding as to the person more suitable than other applicants for appointment.

5. When the applications reached the State Government, a note-sheet was prepared on 28.7.97 and it was decided that out of 11 persons, 5 persons cannot be appointed as notary. The ground was that two of them were already performing the functions of Oath Commissioner; in one case application was incomplete and in two cases certificates were not according to rules. However, after this •5 names remained for consideration. The Law Minister directed appointment of respondents Radhacharan Parashar, Girraj Kumar Sharma and Gurunarayan Sharma, respondents 3, 4 and 5, respectively, as notary.

6. The proceeding is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the person more suitable should have been appointed, but the appointment is arbitrary and a writ can be issued against arbitrary action.

7. I have perused the record. From the record, it does not transpire that there was any application of mind in selecting respondents No.3 to 5 as Notary of District Bhind.

8. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that it is the choice of the State Government to select any of the persons from the list. Respondents No.3 to 5 also supported the act of the respondent-State and submitted that the appointment is proper and according to law.

9. The contention of the respondents cannot be upheld. On going through the record it is apparent that procedure for appointment of notary has not been followed and the selection deserves to be quashed.

10. Rule 7 of the Rules is reproduced below :-

"7. Recommendations of the competent authority. -- (1) The competent authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections if any, received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 make a report to the appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may. be rejected.

(2) The competent authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including costs of hearing if any, shall be borne

(3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to following matters, namely :-

(a) whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which the applicant proposes to practice as a notary;

and the number of existing notaries practising in the area it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area

(b) whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practice and the number of existing notaries practising in the area it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the are