wmg Em (Q a /) [:3 W IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION No.4448/2005. Gopinath Sao, S/o Shli Jiwanlal PETITIONER: Sao, aged about 54 years, R/o B.T.I Road , Mahasamund , Tehasil & Disuict Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh VERSUS K1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Law & Legislative Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (r 2. District Judge, Raipur , District Raipul, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBTION, CERTIORARI, AND ANY OTHER WRITS, DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. Xl-HC-78 HZ.€../.Y}2:.§m$.)2§i.... mzoo maim'ai - anéaim (WE) anéaarrm . mmmasnéa ' ' ' mm#%m $Wanéw . . 19.9.2005 Shri Mok Devangan, comsel for fhe pe'rifioner. 5M1'e. Shri Vashwanf Singh Thakur, Govt Advocafa for ‘l'he The pefii'ioner- has pre 'erred fhis wri‘r pefifion under- Ar‘ricle 226 of fhe Cons‘ritufi n of India. The case of the pefifio er is fhafhe was appbinfed as Nofar-y Public vide order dafe 137.1998 for a pariod of five‘ years. On 16.4.2003 fhe pe‘rif oner' applied for renewal of his cer‘rificafe fo prac'tice as N fury Public, buf same, was nof reneWed and The petifion was communicated The said refusal vide memo da‘red 21.7.2004 issued from the office of The Disfrici' é Sessions J dge, Raipur. Thereaf‘rer, The pefifioner mode a re‘preseni‘a ion, bu? fhe some has also noi- been accepi’ed. The impugned order (A nexure P-4} simply shows fhaf renewal applicafion was no? o lowed. The provisions of sub- seciion (2) of Secfion 5 of 1' e Notaries Aci, 1952 envisages about the renewal of cerl'ifi aie for a period of five years, but confrary to this prov sion, the application of the . petitioner for renewal of ce tificate to proctice as Notory’ Public has been rejected. Counsel for the petiti ner submitted'that in view of dated 24.3.2005 passed in the judgment of this Cour e WW$ ........ ..... . ....... ‘ marmmaiaw)? d . mmer'ww "Mmmm ..?_, .....L....:.‘...t:. W200 $Wanéa' w.P.N'o.3247‘/os betwun eh andra Prnkash sharma Vs. Stan of 6.6. & others ond’ other conneoted matters, the respondents ‘be directed pe‘iifioner- for renewal of Nonry Public, to: which i‘orned Govt Advoca‘re‘for ‘rhe Sfafe/respondenfs has no o jee‘i‘ion. Having heard: learned ounsei for the parties, having regard to the facts 6x cir‘cumstanc s of the case, havingregard to the provision of sub-section (2 of Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and having regard tf the judgment of 1’his Court fhe respondent No.1 is direote to consider the application of the pefifioner for renewal of , ’Publ>ic afresh in fhe lighf of Cour-f. L d The pefifioner to up 'period of 15 dqys from today. Wifh 1'he direcfion of of. ’ > L Cerfified copy as per r uies. -s" To consider fhe case of fhe his certifica're 'ro pracfice as isncer‘rificofe fo prac‘rice as Notary the above judgmenf rendered by This proach fhe Low Secrefary within o :resaid, the petition stands disposed fw— L.C,BHADOO Judge SP/FS/2005 - 20.000 i , \ .‘ y.” r7 i\‘ s\ %1 1 .. i