MKS F "•K^i ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. ^^St-f / 2005 Petitioner Versus Respondents \^ A> y l-y\s~ •s' 2. 3. Dhruv Narayan Pandey S/o Late R.R.Pandey, Aged about 62^years, Advocate, R/o Sadar Road, Jagdalpur, Dist: Bastar- (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Law & Legislative Affairs Mantralaya, Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) The Dy.Secretaiy Law and Legislative Department Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) Affairs The District 8s Sessions Judge, Bastar, Dist: Jagdalpur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 ^5 ga H!QH GQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAniSGARH: BtLASPUR SINGL£BEN5±L- HON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK. C^ WR1T PETIT!ON N0.5S01 OF20Q5 Dhpjv Narayan Pandey Vereus State of Chhaffisgarh and othere. Present: Mr. Prafuil Bharat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. ^rawat, Dy. A.G., with Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned G.A., for ths State of Chhaffisgarh. ORALQRDER (Passed cn 21ST November 2005) The foltewing Ordsr of the Court was passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ: • Ru)e nisi. WBh the consent of the leamed counse! for the parties, the writ peSUon was heard finally. 2. The peiitioner is an Advocats. By an ordsr dated 11/05/1990 ths petitioner was appointed as Notery of Jagdalpur Civit District and his appointment was renswed from tims to time. His appointment was tast renewed by an order dated i71Q@!2002 up to 11/05/2005. The pstitioner, before expiry of his appointment, on 24/02/2005 made an application to renew his appointmsnt. His requsst was tumed down by respondent No.1 by order dated 26/(S/2005, marked as Annexure-P/3, produced at page 15 of the material papers. Being aggrieved by Ifte said rejection, the peWoner has prefsrred this writ petition under Artictes 226 and 227 of frie CQnstitution of India. ^^- - -L 3. ! have heard tearned counset for e peUtioner and leamsd Dy. Advocats Genera! for the State. 4. !t was contended by ieamed counse! for the pettioner that the 'mpugned order cou'd not be sustained in !aw because it smacks of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Leamed counse! wouid ateo contend that the order is not speaking order inasmuch as 't does not disciose any reason for rs.ssctio". 5. Having heard tearned counsel for the parties, 1 am of the considered opinion that the Government has arbitrarity rsjected the app'ication of the petitioner for renewa! though it is not the yested right of ths pstitioner to seek renewal as a matter of right or as a matter of course. !t is expscted of the Government to freat the application of the peStioner fairiy and reasonably. The impugned order does not disclose any reason whatsoever which weighed with the Go'/emment to reject ihe applicafion of the petitioner dated 24/02^005 for renewl. !n that view of ttie matter, the impugned order could not be sustained in law. 6. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is aitowsd and the impugned order (Annexurs-P/3) dated 2S/Q9/2005 is quashsd and the proceedings are remandsd to ths State Govsmmsnt **"fch a direction to consider the applicaCon of the petitioner dated 24/02/2005 de novo and pass appropriats order in accordance witti law as expeditiously as possibfe, at any rate vnthin a period of two months from the date of receipt ofcopy ofthis ordsr. ___ Sd/- Chief Justice