ppointed as Notary. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings, which is neither binding nor effective till it is converted to a proper order. Thus, challenge to the proceedings is not at all maintainable. 2) _ Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in response to the notice issued 'by respondent No.1, the applicant who is practicing Advocate at Civil Court, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, applied for appointment of Notary. Apart from the petitioner, eight Advocotes have also submitted their applications. However, learned District Judge in violation of Rule 7 of the Notories Act, 1952 forwarded all the applications to the State Government for'appointment as Notary and thereafter, respondent No.1 vide' order dated 5-10—2008 directed to issue order in favour of Krishna Kumar Singh — respondent No.4 and in compliance thereof, a memo has been directed to be issued to the District and Sessions Judge, Jashpur for requisio‘ning challan duly paid of Rs.1000/- and revenue stamp (non—judicial) of Rs.500/—. The writ petition has been summarily dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 3) From perusal of the documents annez<ed with this appeal, it. is observed that the appellant has not filed any order by which the respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Notary and the petition is directed against, the proceedings initiated by the District Judge for appointment of Notary. Learned single Judge keeping in view the above fact has dismissed the petition with an observation that the same is not directed against any order and the same Is not maintainable N 4) We find that there Is no ground avallable to the appellant to challenge the order passed by learned single Judge. \\ ,/ t J a ccordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly 5) / \_ A \ dismissed. No order as to costs. \ l Sd/- Sd/' g Dhirendl‘a M'lshra r ‘ R.N. Chandrakar E, Judge Judge