department of post

Your query is not clear.

Whatever it be answer is ;NO..

The local inquiry in person could have helped you.

The Legal Affairs Department of Union of India, State Govt appointed Notary..

The govt appointing Notary acts in pertaining matters …  and appoints the Inspecting officer say; Dist Judge..or officer appointed by him/her..

Inquire locally.

Check at;

https://legalaffairs.gov.in/notary-cell

Central Government Act

The Notaries Act, 1952

Go thru Sec;8,10..

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/486735/

THE NOTARIES RULES, 1956

https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/The_Notaries_Rules_1956_0.pdf

Also go thru;

Central Information Commission

Mrvijay Prakash Gupta vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 17 June, 2015

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191792870/?type=print

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appellant: Harish Raju,

Respondent: Central Public Information Officer M/o, Law & Justice,

4. The respondent stated that they could not trace the records relating to the sought for information. In fact, there are about 13,500 Notaries in the country. They file their annual return to the Ministry of Law & Justice. Records are just kept in bundles and it is difficult to retrieve information from them. However, they will call for the records from the concerned Notary, and if available, it will be provided to the appellant.

https://dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/1032-Harish-12.05.pdf

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

CIC/SA/A/2014/000790

7. The Commission can not accept the claim for unavailability of the said information. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO to show­cause as to why penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The explanation for the same should be given within 21 days from the date receipt of this order. 

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2014_000790_M_148540.pdf

The CPIO stated that all the available records have been provided to the appellant. She also stated that some of the old records were eaten by the termite and the same could not be provided. 

6.     The Public authority and their authorised agent, notary, an advocate with substantive experience are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack and (iii) partially damaged records. Termite attack, as claimed by the notary republic, need to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(1)(a) and (b) imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.  It was not done so far, hence there is a genuine doubt that registers might have been deliberately caused to disappear and being covered up blaming termite.  If it is true they should show the remains of the termite eaten records. 

21.   This being a glaring example of poor record maintenance leading to “inaccess”, it is difficult for Commission to ignore this serious negligence, lethargy and complacence.   The Commission, hence, takes serious note of negligence on part of Ms. Meena Sharma, the Notary and advocate in preservation of public record, not providing information to the appellant and not complying with order of Commission.   The Commission imposes penalty of  Rs. 25,000/­ against Ms. Meena Sharma.  

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2015_001769_T_184552.pdf

Also go thru;

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/-156839.asp

Another querist wants to act in Notary matter.