Consolidated W.P.(C) Nos. 8803/2022, 5204/2022, 8671/2022, 11889/2022, 23237/2022 – Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956 – Abdul Kareem; Babu Mathew; H.P. Shaboo; Sumam C.S.; Benny Joseph K. v. State of Kerala

**C.R.** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8803 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** M.T.P. ABDUL KAREEM ADVOCATE, NORTH KOVVAL, TRIKARIPUR P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 310 BY ADVS. P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH ASWIN KUMAR M J RENOY VINCENT HELEN P.A. ARUN ROY SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI SIDHIQUL AKBAR K.A. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP AMMINIKUTTY K THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).5204/2022, 8671/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 5204 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** BABU MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, ADVOCATE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDINGA T SOUPARNIKA, PAZHINJAM, UMMANNOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 512. BY ADV B.MOHANLAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW(H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, (COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS PER THE NOTARIES ACT AND RULES). 2 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE NOTARIES ACT, LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8803/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 3 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 8671 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** H.P. SHABOO, AGED 56 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O. S.P. HERIC, VAYALIL BHAVAN, TC-94/1550, EMS NAGAR, PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695035 BY ADV THOMAS M.JACOB ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695001. 2 THE LAW SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695001., PIN - 695001 3 THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE NOTARIES ACT LAW (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM., PIN – 695001 GP SMT. AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8803/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 4 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 11889 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** SUMAM C.S. ADVOCATE, GOWREESHAM, TC 55/2116 (3), KALPAKA GARDENS, KG 230, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695018. BY ADVS. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RIJA K.R. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY (COMPETENT AUTHORITY), LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GP SMT. AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8803/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 5TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 23237 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** BENNY JOSEPH K., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, KURUVATHAZHA HOUSE, OPPOSITE TO MOTHER MARY HOSPITAL, CHUNGAM BYPASS ROAD, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673573 BY ADVS. T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR C.SIVADAS T.O.DEEPA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LAW (H) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 2 THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND - COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER NOTARIES ACT LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 690001 GP SMT. AMMINIKUTTY K THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).8803/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 6 ## **C.R.** ## **JUDGMENT** **[WP(C) Nos.8803/2022, 5204/2022, 8671/2022, 11889/2022, 23237/2022]** Dated this the 25[th] day of January, 2023 The petitioners are Advocates with more than ten years of practice. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their memorial seeking appointment as Notary Public as also the application seeking review of that order. 2. The short facts are as under; The petitioners, after practicing for more than ten years at their respective centres, submitted applications/memorials seeking appointment as Notary Public. After considerable delay, the Competent Authority recommended their names and an interview was conducted by the duly constituted Interview Board. While the petitioners were awaiting appointment as Notary Public, they were served with communications informing that their applications had been decided under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 ('Rules' for short). As Rule 8(1)(c) provides for rejection of the application, the petitioners W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 7 preferred review petitions under Rule 8(3). Except in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23237 of 2022, the review petitions of all others were rejected by a common order dated 01.02.2022, with an omnibus statement that the Government, after exercising its discretion, decided to reject the review. 3. Heard Advs. B. Mohanlal, Thomas M. Jacob, P.A. Muhammed Shah, Suman Chakravarthy, Susmith Kumar T.D for the petitioners and Government Pleaders K.Amminikutty and Rajeev Jyothish George for the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders primarily on the ground that they were bad for non-application of mind and absence of reasons. The other challenge is premised on the allegation that the rejection is actuated by mala fides. 5. In reply, learned Government Pleaders contended that under the Notaries Act and Rules the Government is vested with the absolute discretion to decide an application seeking appointment as Notary public and there is no provision W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 8 which require the Government to state to reasons for rejecting an application. 6. From the arguments advanced, the question arising for consideration is whether the Government is vested with the discretion to reject an application seeking appointment as Notary without stating any reason whatsoever. In order to address this question, it is essential to have a careful scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Notaries Act and Rules. The Notaries Act of 1952 was enforced with effect from 14.02.1956 with the objective of empowering the Central and State Governments to appoint Notaries, not only for the limited purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but generally for all recognized notarial purposes and to regulate the profession of such Notary. As per Section 3, the power to appoint Notaries for the whole or any part of India is vested with the Central Government and, for the whole or any part of a State, with the State Government. A person appointed as Notary by the appropriate Government will be issued with a Certificate authorizing him to practice for a period of five years from the W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 9 date on which the Certificate is issued and his/her name will be entered in the Register maintained by the Government under Section 4. The functions of Notaries enumerated in Section 8 are as under; “ **8. Functions of notaries** .- (1) A notary may do all or any of the following acts by virtue of his office, namely: (a) verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument; (b) present any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange for acceptance or payment or demand better security; (c) note or protest the dishonour by non-acceptance or nonpayment of any promissory note, hundi or bill of exchange or protest for better security or prepare acts of honour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881), or serve notice of such note or protest; (d) note and draw up ship’s protest, boat’s protest or protest relating to demurrage and other commercial matters; (e) administer oath to, or take affidavit from, any person; (f) prepare bottomry and respondentia bonds, charter parties and other mercantile documents; (g) prepare, attest or authenticate any instrument intended to take effect in any country or place outside India in such form and language as may conform to the law of the place where such deed is entitled to operate; (h) translate, and verify the translation of, any document, from one language into another; (ha) act as a Commissioner to record evidence in any civil or W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 10 criminal trial if so directed by any court or authority; (hb) act as an arbitrator, mediator or conciliator, if so required; (i) any other act which may be prescribed. (2) No act specified in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a notarial act except when it is done by a notary under his signature and official seal.” 7. It is pertinent to note Section 9 imposes a bar on practicing as a Notary, or from doing any notarial act under the official seal of a Notary, unless the person holds a certificate of practice issued to him under Section 5. Section 15 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, including the power to prescribe the qualification of a Notary, the form and manner in which applications for appointment as a Notary is to be made and the disposal of such applications. 8. The Notaries Rules of 1956 is formulated in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act. As per Rule 3, no person shall be eligible for appointment as a Notary unless, as on the date of the application, such person had practiced for at least ten years. In the case of women and persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 11 Tribes and other Backward classes, the minimum period of practice is fixed as seven years. A person having the qualifications under Rule 4 can make an application for appointment as Notary through the concerned District Judge or the Presiding Officer of the Court or Tribunal where he/she is practicing as an Advocate. The application, in the form of a memorial, has to be submitted to the Competent Authority. On receipt of the application/memorial, the competent authority will examine the same and if the application is found to be complete in all respects, can call for objections to the appointment of the applicant as a Notary. In case of objection against the appointment, the competent authority shall give the applicant an opportunity to submit his/her representation against the objection. Thereafter an inquiry has to be conducted and a report submitted to the appropriate Government regarding the applicants' eligibility to appear for the interview. Rule 7(3) stipulates that, while making the recommendation under Sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following factors; W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 12 “(3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely:— (a) whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practise as a notary; (b) whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practise and the number of existing notaries practising in the area, it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area; (c) whether, having regard to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objections, if any, raised in respect of his appointment as a notary, and in the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary; (d) where the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practitioners, whether, having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; and (e) where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants: Provided that in respect of categories (b) and (c), if the memorial in Form II is found to be in order, the competent authority may issue certificate of practice as Notary directly by exempting appearance before the' Interview Board.” On permission being granted by the appropriate Government, the competent authority shall inform the applicant about the W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 13 time, date and venue of the interview to be conducted by the interview board constituted under Section 7-A(2) for the purpose of judging the competency of the applicant. After the interview, the interview board will submit its recommendations to the appropriate Government. 9. Rule 8(1) confers the appropriate Government with the power to allow, reject or partly allow the application after considering the recommendation of the interview board. For convenience, the contextually relevant portion of Rule 8 is extracted hereunder; “ **8. Appointment of a notary** .- (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, (ci) 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). W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 14 (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.” 10. In the writ petitions under consideration, the competent authority had recommended to the Government to allow the petitioners to appear before the interview board. As per Rule 7, such recommendation is made on finding the applicant to have satisfied the parameters set out in Rule 7(3). Thereafter, the interview board judged the competency of the applicants and recommended their names to the Government. 11. In the above factual scenario, the legal question arising for consideration is whether, despite the recommendation by the interview board, the Government can reject the applications without assigning reasons. No doubt, Rule 8 only says that, on receipt of the interview board's recommendation, the Government shall consider the recommendation and allow or reject the application. The W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 15 Government's understanding seems to be that, Rule 8 confers it with the discretion to reject any application without assigning any reason. The understanding is flawed firstly for the reason that the Government cannot deal with the application submitted by an Advocate with professional standing of more than ten years in such a casual manner and reject the application unceremoniously. Further, the Government is dealing with the applications recommended by the competent authority and the interview board, after assessing the suitability and judging the competence of the applicant. Secondly, when discretion is vested with an administrative authority or a judicial or quasi-judicial forums, that has to be exercised in a judicious manner and within the four corners of the enabling statutory provision. Here, the enabling statutory provision is Rule 8, which requires the Government to take a decision on the applications, after considering the recommendation of the interview board. This essentially means that if, in spite of favourable recommendation, the Government decides to reject an W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 16 application by exercising the discretion vested with it, the reasons for such rejection ought to be stated in the order. 12. In this context it should be apposite to read **Sharp v. Wakefield** [(1891) A.C 173] by Lord Halsbury, wherein the concept of discretion has been aptly described in the following words; “When it is said that something is to be done **within the discretion of the authorities that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according** **to private opinion …according to law and not humour** . It is to be, not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.” It is thus clear that discretion cannot be a shield for acting in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. What is expected of an authority vested with discretion are actions that are fair, reasonable and judicious. It is inadvisable to depend on the good sense of individuals, however high-placed they may be and it will be unwise and impolitic to leave any aspect of life to be governed by discretion, when it can conveniently and easily be covered by the rule of law. W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 17 13. Yet another pertinent defect in the impugned orders are the complete absence of reasons. Orders without reasons, whether it be judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, cannot withstand the test of law. The need for recording reasons in orders has been often reiterated by the Apex Court. In **S.N.Mukherjee** v. **Union of India** [(1990) 4 SCC 594] it was held that, except in cases where the requirement of providing reasons is dispensed with, expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi judicial function is required to give reasons for its decisions. It may also be beneficial to read the following erudite expression in **M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan** [(2010) 9 SCC 496] “The face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority, affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx.” Therefore, even accepting that an element of discretion is vested with the Government, that is no justification for rejecting the applications under non-speaking orders. W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 18 In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The Government is directed to reconsider the petitioners' applications and pass fresh reasoned orders, after adverting to the recommendations of the interview board. The orders, as directed above, shall be passed within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ## **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** sb W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 19 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8803/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5677/H2/2016/LAW DATED 8.06.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S.O.(ORDINARY) NO.129/2022/LAW W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 20 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5204/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENROLLMENT DATED 29.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.25923/H2/2018/LAW DATED 27.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.28P15/H2/2014/LAW DATED 02.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2815/H2/2014/LAW DATED 11.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.334/H2/2021/LAW DATED 27.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT, Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2020 OIN WPC NO.29752/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2021 IN EOC NO.23935/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(RT) NO.129/2022/LAW DATED 01.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 21 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8671/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 2809/H2/2013/LAW DATED 10.9.2021 UNDER RULE 8(1)(C) OF THE NOTARIES RULES 1956. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 16.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2021 IN WP(C) 26767 OF 2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF GO (ORD.) NO. 129/2022/APPOINTMENT DATED 1.2.2022 REJECTING THE REVIEW PETITION. W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 22 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11889/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 11.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BAR ASSOCIATION.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.11.2009 BY| ||THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.1.| |Exhibit P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND MEMORIAL MADE BY| ||THE PETITIONER IN FORM 1.| |Exhibit P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED| ||13.8.2020.| |Exhibit P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE| ||RESPONDENT DATED 9.6.2021.| |Exhibit P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED| ||19.7.2021 AGAINST EXT.P6.| |Exhibit P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2022 IN| ||EXT. P7 REVIEW PETITION BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION OF THE| ||PETITIONER DATED 9.6.2021.| |Exhibit P10|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI ACT DATED| ||22.6.2021.| W.P.(C). **8803, 5204, 8671, 1889 & 23237/2022** 23 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23237/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P-1|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29-12-2015 ISSUED| ||BY THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND| ||COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P-2|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER HAVING| ||NO.28120/H2/2015/LAW DATED 26-02-2016 ISSUED BY| ||THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND| ||COMPETENT AUTHORITY.| |Exhibit P-3|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-11-| ||2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE| ||ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND| ||COMPETENT AUTHORITY .| |Exhibit P-4|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-02-2021 IN| ||WP(C) NO. 26765 OF 2020.| |Exhibit P-5|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.28120/H2/2015/LAW| ||DATED 18-10-2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P-6|A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED| ||10/12/2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P-7|A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/03/2022 ISSUED BY| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P-8|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTIFICATION| ||HAVING NO.334/H2/2021/LAW DATED 27/01/2021.| |Exhibit P-9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 23864 OF| ||2011 (V.MOHAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND| ||OTHER), DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF| ||THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA.|