Ruby Jose vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21691 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 21691 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 November, 2021

Kerala High Court

Ruby Jose vs State Of Kerala on 2 November, 2021

WP(C) NO. 12085 OF 2011                   1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                                WP(C) NO. 12085 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:

               RUBY JOSE
               EDATTUKARAN HOUSE,MALA.P.O,THRISSUR.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
               SRI.K.RAVI PARIYARATH



RESPONDENT/S:

               STATE OF KERALA
               TO THE GOVT.,LAW DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT,
               SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    02.11.2021,         THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12085 OF 2011               2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.12085 of 2011
                    --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021


                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the basis of Ext P2 as an advocate notary within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to conduct an enquiry as to the appointments allegedly made as evidenced by Ext P9 since the same being illegal and unjustified in the interest of justice.

AND

iii) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant."

2. The petitioner herein is an advocate by profession.

She had applied for appointment as a notary. Ext.P1 will show

that the petitioner submitted an application and the same is a

notice issued for conducting a local enquiry about the

application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the biodata

submitted by the petitioner to the authorities concerned. When

there is no response from the authorities, even after the

inspection conducted as per Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner

submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Minister.

Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Government and

issued Ext.P5, in which it is specifically stated that there is no

proposal to appoint any new notaries and if there is any such

proposal, the application of the petitioner will be considered.

Ext.P5 is an order issued on 23.7.2008. Again, the petitioner

approached with a representation through the grievance cell

of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Ext.P6 is the reply received by

the petitioner, in which also, it is stated that there is no

proposal to appoint new notaries. Thereafter, the petitioner

submitted Ext.P7 dated 5.1.2011. It is the case of the petitioner

that there is no response to the same. The petitioner produced

Ext.P9 news paper in which it is stated that about 209 notaries

are appointed. The grievance of the petitioner is that when

Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 proceedings says that the petitioner's

application will be considered when new notaries are

appointed, about 209 notaries were subsequently appointed,

which is clear from Ext.P9 news paper.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner is relying Ext.P9 news paper to

substantiate her case that there was appointment of notaries.

There is an assurance given in Exts.P5 and P6 to the effect that

her application will be considered if there is any proposal to

appoint notaries. This writ petition is pending from 2011

onwards. I think , this writ petition can be disposed, directing

the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to get

appointment based on the observation of Exts. P5 and P6.

There can be a direction to consider the same and pass

appropriate orders, in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following

manner :

1) The petitioner is free to submit a representation

narrating his grievance, in the light of the

observation in Exts.P5 and P6 within one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2) Once such a representation is received, the

respondent will consider the same and pass

appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date

of receipt of the representation.