BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(C)No. 663tjl'i /2009 SWfflf 8EN-?> PETITIONER V.. p?< ^^J^^ ^S%]K:- r"A.-..."-"""""""" ^^^" RESPONDENTS ^ Miss Shobharani Gupta D/o. late Brijmohan Das Gupta, aged about- 42 years, Occupation- Advocate, R/o. HMT Chowk, Handipara, Raipur, District- Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS /:1 The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District & Sessions Judge, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF [NDIA. ^•.y^. ±.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6944 of 2009 Petitioner Versus Respondent Miss Shobharani Gupta The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 15th Day of Juiy, 2010) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the foliowing relief(s): (a) The Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10/09/2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.2. (b) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 & 2 to consider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of license ofthe Notarywithin stipulate period. (c) Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner. Briefly stated, grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted a license of Notary as per Notaries Act, 1952 (in short "the Act, 1952) for a period of five years w.e.f. 02/06/2005. The petjtibner submitted his application for renewal of his notarial licence before expiry of five years on ,^-.^.^ /^^ I, c,"^h i ^J./ INININ^" 2 t1'7 29/05/2009 after fulfilling the formalities as per provisions of the Act, 1952. After receiving the above application, respondent authorities sent the same along with recommendations for renewal of the licence, but the same has not been considered and thereafter, it was informed to the petitioner that the State Government has decided not to renew notarial licence in the name of the petitioner, as is evident from letter dated 09/09/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, reported in 225 L.T. (C.G.) 50, argues that the government while considering the application for renewal of certificate of notary is required to consider each individual case and find out whether on merit particular person is entitled for renewal of the certificate or he has disentitled himself for renewal of the certificate by his acts or deeds during the period when she was practicing as Notary Public. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to indicate that by any executive order the State will be entitled to debar all the Notaries from renewal of their certificates. On the other hand, the respondents, in their return or during oral arguments, have not disputed the averments in the petition that the petitioner applied for renewal of notarial licence before expiry of the period of five years and that there is no complaint against the petitioner regarding discharge of his duties as Notary Public,and it has been further averred that respondent authorities had recommended the case of the petitioner for renewal of his notarial licence. However, it was contended that the petitioner does not have any legal right for being appointed as Notary nor does she has a right that his application for renewal of his Notarial licence should be allowed compulsorily only on its mere w -<%,t.^ 3 ^ ,^ ;;;-^"^-- submission. The renewal has been refused with a purpose to give fair opportunity to the fresh advocates to act as Notary. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. In Chandra Prakash Sharma (supra) this Court while considering the contention of the petitioner that his application for renewal of notarial licence has been refused without assigning any reason, after elaborately discussing the provisions of theAct of 1952, Notary Rutes, 1956 and the subsequent amendment, held that thepurpose behind the Act is that the Government While considering the application for renewal of notarial licence is required to consider the case of each individual on merits to ascertain whether any particular person is entitled to renew of the certificate by his acts and deeds during the period when he was practicing as Notary Public. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, the application for renewal of notarial licence of the petitioner has been refused without considering his past performance as Notary Public and without considering the recommendations. In these circumstances, the order of Annexure P/1 cannot be sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits and decide the same in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge