•• I; i— C^ f<5^_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) N0. <2>?^^ /2011 PETITIONER A^^^ ^^•^^yr ^M^-y' Rakesh Pandey, s/o late Jiya Bhai Pandey, aged 50 years, occupation Advocate and Notary, resident of Saida, Tahsil - TaKhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) <tSP-''^\A % VERSUS ^" RESPONDENTS ^: State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THB NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC^. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER '"&. '' ,-,,.a^ -^ (\ ''sssy1?, s C7 HIGH COITRT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BITASPIJR WMT PETmON (C) No. 3785 of2011 Rakesh Pandev, VRRSIJS WRH- pRTrnoN IJNDRR ARTICT.R 226 OF THR CONSTITIJTION OF 8B: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Sunii Otwani Advocateforthe Shri V.V.S.Moorihy, Depuly Advouaie Generai For the Slale/ ^•ss^ 'assed on 06"' day ofSe er. 201 petitioner has the orovisions tliis petition is to the order dated 03,05.2010 .) passed by the respoadent, whereby the name ofthe been stnack off from tfae Register of Notories, ofsection lOCd) ofthe Notaries Act, 1952. ie petn.ioner suomits tse faad subautted an application for renewal of his Notar alongwith the requisite fee ofRs. 500/- on 18.01,2010 (.Annexiire P/5). Shri Otwani fiirther submits that the petitioner also made an application 23.01.2010 (Annexiire P./6) for expaasion of his t.erritorial liarit for working as Nolarv. Ali of a. sudden, the petitioner received a ccanmunication dated 24.06.2010 from fhe office of the District & Sessious Judee, Bilaspur wherebv the petitioner was asked to collect the aon-judicial stamp and Ihe bank chaUaa which was deposited for ren.ewa.l ofhis Notary license. It is aeM cont.ended tfaat without any rhyme or reason, vide the order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexiire P/l). name of fee ;een .stnick offfrom the Reaist.er ofNotaries. LUVU^;^ were some the On Ifae other hand, Shri Moorthy, leamed General appearing far the respondent. submits complaiats aeaiast the petitioner that he was not work ofNotary a.t. TaHtatpw, for wfaich he was appointed been Derformmg the work ofNotarv at the office st. Bilasour. The petitioner was issued a memo on 17.04.2009. to "•^A. •'l ,>. ^-^^ '^ M .- n. Vs'iSSj:. s ®!» clarifv U»stand ia regard to the complamte made against him. The District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has algo conducted an enquiry in regard to the complaint made agaiast. the pet.itioner in whi.ch the comolaiat was found to be correct.. 4. Shri Otwani fiirther submits that eveia ifthere was any comp!amt against. the petitioner, that should have been m proper profonna. i.e. ia Form No. XIII imder the provisioas ofNotary Rules. 1956 (for short 'the Ruk-s, 1956'} and proper orocedure as prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956. ought to faa.ve been followed for inquirv into the allegations of professional misconduct or other misconduct, which appea.re, tiave been completeiy ignored. Shri Otwaui next. contends that this petition mav be disposed ofin temis ofthe order passed in S.L.Gupta v. State of Chhattssgarh' as the facts and issue involvsd in this petition as well as S.L.GuptJ, ars identical. -5. Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearmg for the State/resoondent fairly submits that the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identica! to tfaat of S.L.Gupta, and this petition may also be disposed ofinthe same terms. 6. In view of the clear and categorical submission made bv leamed couceel for the parties, the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 CAimexiire P/l) is qiiashed. However, liberty is reserved f.o fhe respondent t.o take action, if so advised, ia accordance with the stiitutorv orovisions as orescribed under the Rules. 1956. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the above ext.sni No order asto ;osts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge