K.-y?" '$- s 'i... '*.».-^•ff ».•.."••;>.-..» C-^1^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION YCt No. :?-6' /2010 PETITIONER ^ >^^ ^ys^ }y^^' ^y$y" ,<<s"! ^ •s>- x Basant Sharma,S/o Shri Lachhiram Sharma, Age- 51 years,0ccupation- Advocate, R/o- Pathalgaon,Distt- Jashpur Nagar(C.G-) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur ^ 2. Awar Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur , 3. The District and Session Judge, Jashpur Nagar, Distt- Jashpur Nagar(C.G.) ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI/ DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT mfe?'SS^S"^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PET1TION (C). No. l76of2010 PETmONER : Basant Sharma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNUER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUnON OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Slm SatishK. Afiiuhotri, J, Present: Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORUER(OKAL) (Passed on 22nd day of June, 2010) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief(s) : 10.1. That, tfus Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ m the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 14/9/2009 vide Armexure P-1 issued by respondent No.2. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of maudamus directing the respondents to consider the application for renewal of license of the Notai-y within stipulated period. 10.3. Any ofher reliefs deem fit just and proper may also be passed in favour ofthe petitioner including the cost of the petitioa. 10.4. Cost offhe petition. 2. Briefly stated, grievance ofthe petitioner is that he was granted a license of Notary as per Notaries Act, 1952 (in short "the Act, 1952) for a period offive years w.e.f. 4 December, 2003 vide Annexure P/2. The petitioner submitted his application for renewal of his notarial licence "^^^•^•i>, ;< ''SIKfti S '*j¥ ;'' iil '.. ,k ':• '^.~.^.^' .,.,." before expriy offive years on 3/12/2008 after fatfillmg the formalities as per provisions ofthe Act, 1952 vide Annexure P/3. After receiving fhe above application, respondent No.3 sent the same along wifh recommendations forrenewal ofthe licence vide Araiexure P/4, butthe same has not been considered and thereafter, it was infonned to the petitioner that the State Govemment has decided not to renew aotarial license m the name of the petitioner, as is evident from letter dated 14-9-2009 (Annexure - P/l). Thus, fhis petition. Leamed counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, reported in 2005 L.T. (C.G.) 50, argues that the govermnent while considermg tfae applieation for renewal of eertificate of notary is required to consider each individual case and fmd out whe&er on merits particular person is entitled tbr renewal of the certificate or he has disentitfed himself for renewal of the certificate by his acts or deeds during the period when he was practicing as Notary Publie. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to iadicate that by any executive order the State will be entitled to debar all the Notaries from renewal oftheir certificates. On the oflier hand, the respondents, in their retum or during oral ai'guments, have not disputed the averments in tiie petition that the petitioner applied for renewal of notarial licence before e3q>uy of the period offive years and that there is no complaint against the petitioner regarding discharge of his duties as Notary Public, and it has been fiiriher averred that respondent No.3 had recommended the case ofthe petitioner for renewal ofhis notarial licence. However, it was contended that tfae petitioner does not have any legal right for being appointed as Notaiy nor does he have a ri^ri. that his application for renewal ofhis Notarial licence should be allowed compulsorily only on its mere submissioa. The renewal has been refased with a purpose to give tair opportunity to the fresh advocates to act as Notary. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7r 6. In Chandra Prakash Sharma (sapra) this Court while considering the contention ofthe petitioner that his application fbr renewal ofi»tarial licence has been refused without assigning any reason, after elaborately discussing the provisions ofthe Act of 1952, Notary Rules, 1956 and tt»esubsequent amendment, held that the purpose behind the Act is that the Govemment wliile 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 renewal oftlie certificate by his acts or deeds during the period vvhen he was practicing as Notary Public and fhe same is to be decided on the basis of his performance for the period while he was practicmg as Notary Public. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, the application for renewal of notarial licence ofthe petitioner has been refased without eonsidering his past perfbnnance as Notary Public and without considering the recommendations, which were submitted by the respondent No.3 on being called by the State. In these circumstances, the order ofAimexure P/l cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. Li the resuit, the petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/l 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. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge Asliok