A division bench of the Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice S H Kapadia gave the state a week to file the affidavit, with the petition's next hearing slated for July 8.

Four advocates, from the districts of Kolhapur, Pune, Satara, Sangli, Ratnagri and Sindhudurg filed the petition way back in 1998 after the state government had appointed about 38 advocates as notaries for the areas. While the appointments of these notaries have been continued, the appointment of further notaries have been stayed in an order given by the division bench of Justice B N Srikrishna and Justice S S Parkar in March 1999.

The state government's law and judiciary department had issued a notice asking for applications for appointing notaries in 1996. Advocates AjitMohite, Prahlad Lad, Dhanaji Patil and Juwanv Bardeskar applied for the posts. However, the government's list announced in 1998 did not contain their names. The advocates then approached high court claiming that the government did not follow rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 wherein it was incumbent on the state to hold an enquiry into the integrity of the applicants, and then give the applicant an oppurtunity to make his representations against any objection the state might have against them.

However, none of the advocates were called for any interview. Pointing out examples of the government's failure to go by rules, the petitioners have stated that one Murumkar, a 70-year-old advocate from Kolhapur had been appointed a notary without knowing if he could perform the duties. Notaries, thus appointed have the power to notarise wills and testaments, recognised by law. The failure of the state government in appointing them as notaries, the petitioners claimed have caused them grievous harm andinjury. The rejection of their applications, they added, was a political exercise.

Interestingly, the state advocate general had not disputed the fact that the rules had not been followed by the government, as was pointed out in the March interim order of Justice Srikrishna and Justice Parkar. The bench had then directed that a counsel for the Union of India be present in the court. However, the Central government remained unrepresentated at the court in subsequent hearings.