G C ANURADHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 11756 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

G.C. ANURADHA
W/O B.N. KARIBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/AT TYAGARAJ LAYOUT
BUKKAMBUDI ROAD
AJJAMPURA TOWN
AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577 547
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI: AKSHAYA B M, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2 SRI. B.S. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O B. SIDDARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/O DODDA BOKIKERE
AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547

3 SRI. T.C. MANJUNATH
S/O CHANDRAPPA



Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/O THIMMAPURA VILLAGE
SOKKE POST, AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547

4 SRI. K.S. HARSHA
S/O SURENDRA BABU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/O OMKAR NILAYA, WARD NO.1
BASAPPA BADAVANE
BIRURU TOWN, KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 547

5 SRI. S.R. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/O SOKKE VILLAGE
AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 547
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: M SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI: J M ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A NO.2/2026)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER LAW.LCL/
25/2022, DATED 13.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY
RESORTING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITION AND TO
SET ASIDE A NOTIFICATION NO.01/2024 DATED 14.03.2024
ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT CHIKKAMAGALUR IN FURTHERANCE TO THE ORDER ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2024 INVITING FRESH
APPLICATIONS FOR THE POST OF NOTARY IN AJJAMPUR
REVENUE TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

- 3 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
T.P.VIVEKANANDA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

CAV ORDER
The petitioner who is a practicing Advocate has filed
the present writ petition challenging the Communication
dated 13.02.2024 at Annexure-A, so also the Notification
dated 14.03.2024 inviting fresh application for
appointment of Notary for Ajjampura Revenue Taluk.
2. The facts which led the petitioner to file the
present writ petition are that the State Government
passed an order dated 29.01.2022 creating the post of
Notary, which is the newly created post in Ajjampura
Revenue Taluk of Chikkamagaluru District. Pursuant to the
Government order, the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Chikkamagaluru District, issued the Notification
dated 11.03.2022 inviting applications from the eligible
applicants for appointment to the post of Notary at the
Ajjampura Revenue Taluk. In response to the same, seven

- 4 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


practicing Advocates including the petitioner have filed the
applications. All the applicants were interviewed by the
Interview Board on 17.03.2023.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of
the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the
post of Notary. Thereafter, there was no communication
regarding the issuance of appointment order. The
petitioner submitted various representations, which were
not responded to by the respondent. However, as a bolt
from the blow, the petitioner received the communication
dated 13.02.2024, whereby the petitioner was informed
that the State Government has decided to issue fresh
notification under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries Rules, 1956
and reject all the applications and issue fresh notification
for appointment to the post of Notary and as and when the
fresh notification is issued, the petitioner may apply. It is,
thereafter, Notification dated 14.03.2024 at Annexure-B
has been issued inviting applications for appointment to
the post of Notary. It is the said circumstances, which

- 5 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


made the petitioner to approach this Court through the
present writ petition.
4. This Court passed an interim order staying the
fresh Notification issued for appointment to the post of
Notary. During the pendency of the present writ petition,
the respondent had issued one more Notification on
24.03.2025 inviting applications for appointment to the
Post of Notary, which is additionally created post pursuant
to the Government Order dated 28.01.2025. When the
said fact brought to the notice of this Court, this Court
passed further interim order on 26.03.2025, which reads
as follows:
“ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that she was an applicant to the post of Notary on
applications being called by the State and
emerged successful. Despite the petitioner being
eligible to be appointed in terms of her merit, no
appointment order comes about. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that file goes into the
hiding. At that point in time, on an apprehension
that another notification may be called, the
petitioner is before this Court. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has granted an interim order
of stay.

- 6 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024



Therefore, learned High Court Government
Pleader shall secure instructions as to what has
happened to the selection of the petitioner as
Notary by the next date of hearing. Any further
steps that is being taken by the State to fill up
the post or create additional post during the
pendency of this petition in the teeth of the
aforesaid facts will be viewed seriously.
List this matter on 08.04.2025."

5. The writ petition is opposed by the State
by filing statement of objections. It is apposite to
extract paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the statement of
objections filed by the State, which reads as follows:
“8. It is further submitted that the said
interview was conducted by the Interview
Committee on 17.03.2023 and one
candidate, i.e., the Petitioner herein was
recommended to be suitable for newly
created notary post. At this juncture, before
issuance of appointment letter several
complaints were received by the Additional
Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and
Human Rights, wherein alleging misconduct
and mis-behaviour on her part.
9. It is submitted that upon
considering the complaints and intention to
uphold and maintain dignity of the newly
created post, it was decided not to proceed
with the appointment of the Petitioner.”

6. As could be seen from the afore-extracted
paragraphs of the statement of objections, it is the
contention of the state that pursuant to the interview

- 7 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


conducted on 17.03.2023, the name of the petitioner was
recommended to be suitable for newly created post of
Notary, however, in view of the complaints received, it has
been decided not to proceed with the appointment of the
petitioner, but the State has taken the decision to issue
fresh notification. It is the further contention of the State
that, since no appointment order having been issued in
favour of the petitioner, no right has accrued in her favour
to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. An application for impleading and vacating of
the interim order has been filed by some of the applicants
who were the applicants along with the petitioner for
appointment of Notary. The said application has been
formally allowed and they are arrayed as respondent
Nos.2 to 5. It is their contention in the application for
vacating stay and so also the statement of objections to
the writ petition that in view of pendency of this writ
petition and the interim order passed, the process of
appointment of Notary in Ajjampura Revenue Taluk has

- 8 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


come to stand still and further, the impleading applicants
are deprived of filing applications for appointment of
Notary in respect of additionally created post of Notary
pursuant to the Government Order dated 28.01.2025.
8. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have also stated in the
statement of objections that vide Notification dated
18.06.2026, the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC is
established at Ajjampura where more than 2,300 cases
are pending. The services of notaries at Ajjampura are
very much necessary. It is also contended that, for the
purpose of notarization of the documents and affidavits,
the advocates and the parties will have to travel for more
than 50 kilometers and accordingly, prayed for disposal of
the writ petition allowing the State Government to fill up
the post of Notary in respect of Ajjampura Taluk.
9. In order to ascertain as to why the process of
appointment of Notary pursuant to the Notification dated
11.03.2022 and the interview conducted on 27.02.2023 is
not proceeded further and the reason for the State taking
a decision to cancel the process of appointment of Notary

- 9 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, the learned HCGP
was requested to secure the records relating to the subject
matter.
10. The learned HCGP has produced the original
records relating to the appointment of Notary for perusal
of this Court. On perusal of the original records, it is found
that the interview was conducted by the members of the
Committee and marks have been assigned by each of the
members of the Committee separately. It is apposite to
extract the marks sheet, which is the part of the original
records:


ಕಮಗಳರು
ೆ

ಇವರನು  ಅಜಂಪರ ಕಂಾಯ ಾಲೂ ಕು

ಕ ಮ ಅಂಕಗಳ 
ð
ಅಭ#% ಗಳ &ೆಸರು

ಸಂ"ೆ#


ಅಧ#(ರು ಸದಸ#ರು-I ಸದಸ#ರು-II ಒಟು.

ಅಂಕಗಳ 

1 2 1 2 5
. . .

/ ೕ
1 2ಮ3ಯ#
1/2 1/2
2 2 3 7
2
.
/ ೕಮ2
1

ಅನು4ಾಧ
1/2 1/2
3 2 1 2 5
. . .
ð
/ ೕ 5 ಎ7 ಮ8 9ಾಜು ನ
1/2 1/2
4 2 1 2 6
. .

/ ೕ ಎ7 ಆ; ಬಸವ4ಾಜಪ=
1/2 1/2
5 2 1 3 6
. .
/ ೕ ಎ7 ರಜ>ೕ?
6 4 4 4
. .
/ ೕ ಮಂಜು@ಾಥ B 1 Absent
1/2 1/2
7 2 1 2 6
. . . ð
/ ೕ 9ೆ ಎ7 ಹಷ

- 10 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


11. The aforesaid documents disclose that the
petitioner has obtained highest marks of 7.5. Therefore,
the name of the petitioner was recommended for
appointment to the post of Notary at Ajjampura Revenue
Taluk, Chikkamagaluru. The relevant paragraph of the
note sheet of the file is extracted below:

“57)
ಕಮಗಳರು
ೆ ಯ ಅಜ ಂಪರ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಾಲೂ OPೆ &ೊಸ ಾQ ಸೃ
1ರುವ
: ð
@ೋಟS ಹು ೆTಯ @ೇಮ9ಾ2PಾQ U@ಾಂಕ 17.03.2023 ರಂದು ಪ[\ಾ ಹ  @ೋಟS
,
ð ð ð
ಸಂದಶ ನ^ದುT ಸದS @ೋಟS ಸಂದಶ ನ ಮಂಡ`Pೆ ಸ9ಾ ರದ ^aೇಷ
, ,
ð ð
9ಾಯ ದ/ 9ಾನೂನು ಇ ಾ"ೆ ರವರು ಅಧ#(SದುT ಜಂB bಾ ರೂಪ9ಾರ ಮತುd
ð ð ð
ಪದ>eತd ಸ9ಾ ರದ ಜಂB 9ಾಯ ದ/ ಸಂಸUೕಯ ವ#ವ&ಾರಗಳ ಇ ಾ"ೆ &ಾಗೂ
ð ð ð ( - ),
ಸ9ಾ ರದ ಉಪ 9ಾಯ ದ/ ಆಡ`ತ 2 9ಾನೂನು ಇ ಾ"ೆ ಇವರು
.
ಸದಸ#ರುಗgಾQ &ಾಜSದTರು

ð
58) iೕಲ ಂಡ @ೋಟS ಹುೆTPೆ U@ಾಂಕ :17.03.2023 ರ ಪ[\ಾ ಹ  11.30
ð
ಗಂkೆlಂದ ಅಪ4ಾಹ  ರವ4ೆ^Pೆ @ೋಟSಗಳ ಸಂದಶ ನವನು 
12.30
ð ð ð
ನmೆಸಾlತು . ಈ ಹು ೆTPೆ 07 ಅಭ#% ಗಳ  ಅ
ಸ8 1ದTರು . ಅ
ಸ8 1ದT 07
ð ð ð ð
ಅಭ#% ಗಳ8 06 ಅಭ#% ಗಳ  ಸಂದಶ ನ9ೆ  &ಾಜ4ಾQಾd4ೆ. &ಾಜSದT ಅಭ#% ಗಳ
ಸpಯನು  &ಾಜ4ಾ2 ಪB.ಯ8 ಪmೆದು9ೊಳqಾQೆ .

ð ð ð
59) ಸಂದಶ ನ9ೆ  &ಾಜ4ಾದ ಅಭ#% ಗಳ ಪmೆದು9ೊಂಡ ಅಂಕಗಳನು  ಸಂದಶ ನ
ಮಂಡ`ಯ ಅಧ#(ರು ಮತುd ಪ 2sಬt ಸದಸ#ರು ಪ ೆ#ೕಕ\ಾQ >ೕuದುT , ಇವ ಗಳನು
ð
ಒkಾ.Q ಸಂಕಲನ wಾಡಾQರುತdೆ ಅಭ#% ಗಳ &ಾಜ4ಾ2 ಪB. &ಾಗೂ
,
ಅವರುಗಳ  ಪmೆದು9ೊಂಡ ಅಂಕಗಳ ಪB.ಯನು ಕ ಮ\ಾQ ಕಡತದ x
ಸಂಖ ◌್| :23-24 ರ8 ಇSಸಾQೆ .

ð
ಅಂಕಗಳ ಪB.ಯ8 ಗSಷ~ ಅಂಕ ಗ`1ರುವ ಅಭ#% / ೕಮ2
1 ಅನು4ಾದ
60) . .
,
ಇವರನು  ಅಜಂಪರ ಕಂಾಯ ಾಲೂ ಕು
ಕಮಗಳರು
ೆ ಯ @ೋಟS ಹು ೆTPೆ
ð ,
@ೇಮಕ wಾಡಬಹು ೆಂದ ಸಂದಶ ನ ಮಂಡ`ಯು /•ಾರಸು€ wಾuದುT wಾನ#

9ಾನೂನು ಸ
ವರ &ಾಗೂ ಸ@ಾ3ನ# ಮುಖ#ಮಂ2 ಯವರ ಆ ೇಶ9ಾQ ಕಡತವನು 
.”
>\ೇU19ೊಳq ಾQೆ

- 11 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


12. The said note was approved by the then Hon’ble
Law Minister. From the reading of further note sheet of the
file discloses that due to the notification of code of conduct
pertaining to the General Election to the State Assembly,
the orders were not passed for appointment. After
completion of the general elections to the State Assembly,
the file was again mooted for further orders. However, the
earlier recommendation of the Interview Committee, which
was approved by the then Hon’ble Law Minister have been
turned down and orders were passed on 14.09.2023 to
commence the process afresh. The said order is not
supported by any reasons.
13. Further noting in the file discloses that the
Officers concerned have opined that without there being a
justifiable reason, the recommendation of the Interview
Committee cannot be rejected and to commence the
process afresh, the reasons will have to be assigned. It is
at that juncture, certain complaints find a place in the
records regarding the candidature and appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Notary. The date of the complaints

- 12 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


commences from 02.01.2024 to 06.01.2024. The
proximity of the dates of the complaints shows that an
attempt was made to co-relate the said complaints to the
decision and the observations made in the note sheet from
paragraph Nos.86 to 91.
14. As noticed supra, no reasons are forthcoming
from the records as to why the process of selection of
Notary pursuant to the earlier notification dated
11.03.2022 was terminated and decision was taken to
issue notification afresh.
15. From the above narrated facts, the question
that arises for consideration is, whether despite the
recommendation by the Interview Committee, the
Government is empowered to reject the recommendation
without assigning any reasons and direct commencement
of process of appointment afresh.
16. In order to consider the said question, it is
necessary to notice Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules, 1956,
which reads as follows:

- 13 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


“8. Appointment of a notary.- 1[(1) [On receipt
of the recommendations of the Interview Board,
the appropriate Government shall consider the
recommendation and shall-]
(a) allow the application in respect of the whole of
the area to which it relates; or
(b) allow the application in respect of any part of
the area to which it relates; or
(c) reject the application,
and shall also make such orders as the
Government thinks fit regarding the persons by
whom the whole or any part of the cost of the
application including the cost of hearing, if any,
shall be borne.]
(2) An applicant shall be informed of every order
passed by the appropriate Government under sub-
rule(1).
3) Any applicant whose application has been
rejected [for allowed in respect of only a part of the
area to which it relates] or against whom an order
as to cost has been made under sub-rule(1) may,
within sixty days of the date of the order apply to
the appropriate Government for reviewing the
order and that Government may, after making such
further inquiry as it thinks fit pass such order as it
considers necessary.]
(4) Where the application is allowed, the
appropriate Government shall appoint the applicant
as a notary and direct his name to be entered in
the Register of Notaries maintained by that
Government under section 4 of the Act and issue to
him a certificate on payment of prescribed fees
authorizing him to practise in the area to which the
application relates or in such part thereof as the
appropriate Government may specify in the
certificate, as a notary for a period of [five years]
from the date on which the certificate is issued to
him.
[(4A) The appropriate Government may on and
after the ninth day of May, 2001, appoint notaries
in a State or Union Territory, as the case may be,

- 14 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


not exceeding the number of notaries specified in
the Schedule:
Provided that the number of notaries whose
certificate of practice has been renewed under sub-
section (2) of section 5 of the Act shall be included
in the total number of notaries appointed for the
purpose of counting the total number of notaries
specified in the Schedule:
Provided further that if in a State or Union territory
the number of notaries appointed before the ninth
day of May, 2001 exceeds the number of notaries
specified in the Schedule, such notaries shall
continue to be so appointed in that State or Union
territory, as the case may be]
Provided also that in case, request for
[enhancement of maximum number of notaries
under column(3) of the Schedule] is received from
Union Territory or the State concerned, the same
shall be considered as per the following criteria:-
(a) if there is an increase in the population of the
concerned State or the Union Territory;
(b) if there is increase in the number of districts or
tehsil or taluka of the concerned State or Union
Territory]
(5) The Register of Notaries shall be in Form IIA
and the certificate of practice shall be in Form
IIB.]”

17. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Notaries Rules,
1956, postulates that on receipt of the recommendation
of the Interview Board, the State Government shall
consider the recommendation and take a decision either to
allow the application or to reject the same, meaning
thereby either accept the recommendation or to reject the

- 15 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


same. In case where the State Government exercises its
discretion provided under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries
Rules, 1956, to reject the application or reject the
recommendation of the Interview Board, it is incumbent
for the State to assign valid reasons. The reason for such
rejection cannot be arbitrary or whimsical and the reasons
should pass the test of reasonableness.
18. In the present case, the Interview Board has
assigned 7.5 marks to the petitioner which is the highest
marks obtained by the candidate who has attended the
interview. Despite scoring the highest mark in the
interview and there being a recommendation of the
Interview Board for appointment of the petitioner, if the
State refuse to consider the recommendation and takes
decision to commence the process of appointment afresh
at the fag end of the process, it would definitely affect the
professional career of the petitioner. The Advocate who
has professional standing for more than 10 years and who
opted for appointment to the post of Notary and his or her
candidature is rejected in a casual manner without

- 16 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


assigning any reasons, it would definitely come in the way
of continuance of profession especially at Taluka level.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon two decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in
the cases of M.T.P.Abdul Kareem and Others Vs. State
1
of Kerala and Others and P.C.Najeeb Vs. The State
2
of Kerala and Others and contends that the rejection of
the recommendation of the Interview Board cannot be in
an arbitrary manner and casual manner and the reasons
should be assigned by the State.
20. In the complaints, which find a place in the
records of the Government, it is alleged that there are
certain cases pending against the petitioner herein and
therefore, her candidature is liable to be rejected.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed
two memos dated 06.10.2026 enclosing therewith the
copies of the judgment in O.S.No.301/2019, which is a
decree of compromise, in which the petitioner herein was

1

2023 SCC ONLINE KER 765
2

2023 SCC ONLINE KER 10523

- 17 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


not a party. It is the husband of the petitioner who was
the defendant in the said suit. In C.C.No.907/2017 and
C.C.No.732/2017, the petitioner is arrayed as accused
No.1 and her husband was arrayed as accused No.2. The
said criminal cases are offshoot of the civil dispute
concerning O.S.No.301/2019 and in both the aforesaid
cases, all the accused have been acquitted including the
petitioner.

22. All the aforesaid cases referred to supra are all
a private dispute in relation to the family properties and
nothing to do with the legal profession. Being a party to
the civil dispute and in the criminal prosecution relating to
family dispute or relating to the family properties cannot
be held against the applicant to non-suit her from
becoming a Notary.

23. In the light of the afore-stated facts and
reasoning, this Court is of the opinion that the decision
taken by the State to cancel the process of appointment to
the post of Notary at Ajjampura Revenue Taluk pursuant

- 18 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


to the Notification dated 11.03.2022 does not pass the
test of reasonableness and is contrary to the Notaries
Rules, 1956.

24. At the time of hearing of the petition, the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 raised a concern
that on account of the cancellation of the process of
appointment of Notary pursuant to the Notification dated
11.03.2022, the State is not in a position to fill up one
additionally created post of Notary. In response to the said
submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
categorically submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do
with the process of appointment of additionally created
post of Notary, if the State is considering the
recommendation of the Interview Board for appointment
of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no impediment for
the state to take steps for filling up of the additional post
of Notary for the Ajjampura Taluk forthwith.
25. In the result:
(i) The writ petition is allowed .

- 19 -
WP No. 11756 of 2024


(ii) The impugned Communication dated
13.02.2024 at Annexure-A and the Notification
dated 14.03.2024 at Annexure-B are hereby
quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the
recommendation of the Interview Board
contained at paragraph No.60 of the note sheet
extracted above within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) It is open for the Respondent No.1 to fill up one
additionally created post of Notary in respect of
Ajjampura Revenue Taluk in an expeditious
manner in view of establishment of the Court of
Civil Judge and JMFC pursuant to the
Notification dated 18.06.2026 for the better
convenience of the Advocates practicing at
Ajjampura Court, so also the litigant public.
(v) Registry to return the original records to the
learned HCGP with proper acknowledgment.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE


PB