^ %^ QtA HI6H COURT OF CHMATTISeARH AT Bll.ASPUR OIVISION BENCH; HON. MR. DHlRENORA MISHRA & HON. MR. R.N. CHAN&RAKAR. JJ y-sTiTon-s'r') Writ Asoeai No.286/2009 h.C. Jaln RE5PONDENT®: Vs State or Chhattisqarh dnd anottier JUbSUENT FOR CONSI&ERATION Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge iU 9 ^y^e-st- Sd..'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POST FOR JU&6MENT ONa3-l2-2009 Sd/- 0^.12.2009 &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIREN&RA mISHRA a HON'BLE Mft. R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ (Wrjt Appeai u/'s 2 (l) of the C.6. High Court (Appeai to Diyision Bench) Ac.t, 200S F.C. Jain, S/o Late &opichond lo.m, aged about 45 years, K/o Aamoiok Bhfiwan, Nayaparo, Ward No.5, Ba'od, District Durg, Chhattisqarh. 'eTiTioner Vs RESPONbENT 1. State of Chhattisaar'h throuah the Secretary, Law a Legisiative Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhcsttlsgarh- 2. Dy. 5ecretarv. Law & Leaislative uepartment, &.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, /'I-U^AA,:—.-.-i srf'?H1U3 TISLJtAa'S S. M". T.K. Tiwari, Advoccte for the q3pe!!ant. Mr. U.N.S. &eo. 6ovt. Advocate for the State. \6 (03.12.2009) 1. This writ apDeat is directed aqainst the order dated 21.7.2Q09 tiosssd in W.P. (Ci No.3471/2008 whereby ttie iearned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein. 2. Brief facts, as oro jected from the imDuaned order. are that the petitioner/ apDellant herein wo.s oopointed as Notary vide order dated 8.1.2003 for a oeriod of five years. He iiDplied for renewal or certificate of Notary on 15.10.2007. however, the Detitioner/aapellant herein received the imDuaned order ddted 28.4.2008 wherebv hisiname •was removed from the Notary reaister under the Drovisions of Section 10 (d) of ttie Notaries Act, 1952 on the ground that on enquiry, lit wcs found that the petitjoner WOLS not fit to perform the work of Notary. 3. Learned counsel for the oupeilant submits that the enquiry against the appellant was conducted contrarv to the Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules. 1956 as the sgme was cohducted behind tiie back of the aypellant ,s,3s:ysst,, ^•^^^ r^-._-i.^-^^ without caiy notice tfl him. Ths oppeilant applied for rege.wal befQr'e, expiry of the period of Notary cartificate issued to him, however, by tiTeimpustied^rder.theaDDgllgtit'snamehqsbeenrempvedft'oml'he list of Notary after -Hie expiry of renewai date which is not psrmissible undar the iaw. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the oarties. We have perused the <r i-ecord of the writ petition as also the impugned order. 5. LeasTied Sinale Judqe. on due consideration of the reports dated 11.5.2007 & 18.2.2008 and repiy of the oetitioner dated 5.4.2008 to the show cause notice issued on the basis of aforesaid enquiry reports wherein hehasadmittedhis misconduct and irregubritjescommitted 'by him, has observed that enquiry wouid have been a mere formality as the Detitioner has admitted his fauit and oiccordingiy. dismissed the petition by olacina reilance in the matter of Viveka Nand Sethi v Chairman, Ltd. & others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant ond after going throuah the documents avaiiable on record, we are of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has rightly been dismissed by the iearned Single Judqe. 7. In the result. we find no substonce in thiS writ appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and accordinqly, it is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd.'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 1