Can't Reject Advocates' Notary Applications Summarily Sans Giving Valid Reasons As It Would Cast Stigma On Their Credentials: Kerala HC

Justice Devan Ramachandran held that notary applications cannot be rejected summarily stating that the number of applicants was higher than the number of vacancies.

“Even when the Government has the right to reject an application under Rule 8(1)(c), it has to be done for germane and legal reasons. The factum of the number of applicants being much higher than the vacancies, cannot be the sole reason to summarily reject it, except if it is established that there are others, who are found to be more eligible in the process. (See for support – Abdul Kareem M.T.P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 666]).” ,

Further, the Court stated that rejection of notary applications without explaining valid reasons would cause prejudice to the advocate.

“I must restate that this Court is persuaded to the afore course, because an Advocate cannot be held unworthy of being appointed as a Notary, without explaining why it is so, since this would indubitably cast deep aspersion on his competence and credentials. This cannot be allowed, whatever be the reason, including large number of candidates or applications”, the Court stated.

The petitioner had approached the Court as the authorities rejected his notary applications without assigning any valid reasons. It noted that the petitioner was found eligible by the Statutory Interview Board.

The Court thus made it clear that notary applications of advocates cannot be summarily rejected without giving valid reasons as it would cast a stigma on their reputation and competence.

The Court found that the application of the petitioner was rejected stating that there were a large number of applications. It held that even when there were a large number of candidates, notary applications could not be rejected without assigning proper reasons.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order rejecting his application and directed the authorities to reconsider his notary application.

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates Mathew Kuriakose, T G Sunil, J Krishnakumar, Moni George, K R Arun, Shaji P K, Preethu Jagathy

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

Case title: P C Najeeb v State of Kerala

Case number: W.P.(C).No. 33338 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment