IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR _W.P.(C)No. égég OF 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I \ NDIA Sugar Dos Manik,$%qy%as 7&9 Manik, R/o Kundrapar, Banefara, Dis’r‘r. burg (Chhaffisgarh) Pefifioner Versus Resgonden? Sfafe of Chhm‘fisgarh Through fhe Secre‘rary, Departmen‘r of Law and (Chhafh'sgarh) Legislafive Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur MMahtamugg. NW‘N / ' ‘ ‘ i 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH ATBILASPUE WRIT PET!‘E"!ON 1(3) NO.§§§3_§L2_Q9§ Petiiioner Sagar Das Manik Versas Resgandent Siaie of Ch‘nattisgarh WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF '§-HE CONSTETUTION OF iNDiA (8% : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agaiho‘iri, J.) Present :- $hri Saniay Shyam Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt Advocate for the Stateirespondent. ORDER (eRAu (Passed on 07‘“ Day of July, 2010) 1. By this petii‘aon, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to > renew the certificate of practice as Notary of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 11/09/2009 (Annexure PM) passed by respondentIState, whereby the petitioner‘s appiication for renewai oi his Notariai certificate hae been refused 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrhits that the crder dated 11/09f2009 {Annexure PH) has been passed without assigning any reason and » contention of the respondents in their return is that the notariai certificate to a the petitioner has been refused with an obiect to afford new persons an opportunity to discharge the duties of Notary. Learned counse! turther submits that the dispute invoived in this petition is squareiy covered by the order 0t this Court dated tW‘H/2009 passed in WP‘ (C) No. 5383/2309 {Mananand Mishra V/s $2‘azte of CG. & others). The above fact has not been disputed by Shri Kachhawaha, learned Deputy Advocate Geneai appearing for the State/respondents and he submits that the instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Malta/tend Mishra (supra). 4. in view of the submissions made by iearned‘counsei for the parties and keeping in view that stand of respective parties in the instant petition is similar to that of in the matter of Mahanand Mishra (supra), the instant petition is allowed. impugned order dated 11/09/2009 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case oi the petitionerion its own merits and decide the same in accordance with law. a < it; , i. SatishK.Agnihetri ‘ . f Judge “ ashok ii 71 i