-!!GM COURT OF JIJ01CATURE CHHATT'SGARM • Bll ASPUR '"ari^ ^s^ <^ i'\r 6 'fte^'i ^ i-^:ca^E^b^Jfa*^ i ^a^'-SYEou ^h^^~'^¥ Lia^ 1 E £^^^M^^^r^a.£"Ii • Ei»?aS^»i?s'^1tto?r^^E£FI'^ iLJ= !T| lOi Survakant Chandrakar Aged about 58 years, S/o. Bhanu Prasad Chandrakar R/o Mahasamund, Tehsi' Mahasamund, DistS. (C.G.) \/@f5y£ 1. State ofChhattlsaarh, . hrough Secretas'y, Department of Law and Lecjisiative Affairs, D.K.S Bha'wan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. District and Sessions Judge, !WSE"^i»r >ur, Dlstt. Ra'pur (C..G.) Smt. Gyani Lunla, W/o Shri Ashok Lunia; Advocate, R/o. MahasamuRd, Tehsil, Mahasamund, Distrlct Mahasamund (C.G.) Ku. Manju Klran Kalia, Advocats Rro Baghbuhara, Tehsii - Mahasamund. Dis.tt. Mahasamund ^ {^.<v.} Gopinath Sao, S/o Shri Jiwanlal Sao, Advocate, Mahasamund, Tehsii Mahassmund, Dlstt. Mahasamund fC-.G.) Present: Dr. N.K. Shukia, Sr. Advocate wth Shri Diiip Dubey, iearnsd counsel for the petitionsr, Shr' Yashwant Singh, iearned Govt. Advocate for the ofChhatf'saarh. O! (Passed on 30m August, 2006) Respondents No. 3 to 5 are appointed as Notaries under the Provisions of the Notar'es Act, 1952 by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide its Qrder dated 01-07-2005. 't appears that the petitioner herein had appiiec! for Certificate of Registration as Notary, but, he was not appointed as a Notary. in this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned ths validify of appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 as Notaries. 2- \^ (2) Dr. N.K. ShukSa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pet't'oner Vi'ould contend that in vievv of the judgment of the 'earned SEngie Judge o{ the Madhya Pradesh High Court datec! 25-04-2000 oassec' 'n W.P. No. 3715 of 1998 as sffirrned b" the Div'sion Bench of the sa'd Court vic'e 'ts order dated 05-12-2003 in L.P.A. No. 160 of 2000. the Govemment ouaht not to have renewed the iicsnces of resc'ondents No. 3 to 5. The above contention of the leamed Sen'or Counse' is notwe'i-founded. ('3} !t is true that in Writ Petit'on No. 3715 of 1998 fl'ed i" the Hiah Court of Madhya Pradssh, the sppoint'nent of rsspondents No. 3 to 5 here'n. as Noteries wss assailed and the leamed Slna'e Judgs of that Court having opined that the gppointrnent of respondents No. 3 to 5 sufered from orocsdura! ultra virus aiiowed ths writ oetition vide his order dated 13-07-1998 snd quashed ths appointTisnt of rsspondsnts No. 3 to 5. Feeling aggrieved by that order of the !earned Single Judge, the 3rd and 4' rsspondents herein nameiy Smt. Gyani Lunia and Ku. Manju Kirsn Kaiia preferred L.P.A. No. 160 of 2QOO. it appears that the Division Bench of Madhva Pradesh H'ah Court havina entertained that L.P.A. had stayed the operation of the order of the iearned Singte Judge and by yirt'je of the order of stay, respondents No. 3 to 5 continusd as Notaries. The said L.P.A. was ultimatsly disposed of by a Dlvision Bench of Msdhya Pradesh'High Court o" 05-12-2003. When the L.P.A. was heard fins!ly on that cfate; it v/as brought to the notice of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court that by virtue of the Interim orc'er granted by the Court; respondents No. 3 to 5 continued as Motaries for ful! term of five years and their term had expired we!! before »na 05-12-2003. !n v'ew of the said submission made before the Dfvision Bsnch, the L.P.A. was disposed of in the foiiowing tsrm : "!n t'nat view of the existing factuai matrix, we are inclined to dlrect that the cases of the concerned appe!!ants shal! be considsred afresh for fhe appointment of Notar'es. If any renev/a! has taken piace in the meanwhjle, ths same shai! not be disturbeci. W'rth the aforesaid direction, these appsa' stand disposed of. There shali be no order as to costs". (4) !t appears that after the Division Bsnch of Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed ofthe L.P.A. dated 05-12-2003, respondents No. 3 to 5 made applications for renewa! of the licsnce after the expiry of their previous term and the GovernmeRt havins considered ths same renewed the iics.nces bv the imDuaned order. '-n mv considered opinion, by necessaiy impiicat'on, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the L.PA. did not concur wit'n or approve the finding of the learnecf Singie Judge. ! say this, because, jf the DivJsio" Bench were to concur with the finding of ths learned Sing'e Judge of that Court, it ouaht not to 'nave directed that the cases of respondents No. 3 to 5 herein should be cons'dered afresh, and if any renewal by that time ha.d taken place, the same shou'd not b®disfurbed. Be that as it may, the Govemmsnt which is a donee of the statutor<>/ power, has again considered ths appiications of the respondents No. 3 to 5 and granted ijcences to rsspondents No. 3 to 5. No arguments. 'A'ere ad'/anced 'oefore me with urged to any procedura! impropriety or the authority which had granted the licence acting arbitrarily or ma/a fide to vitiate the 'mpugned action. The oniy contention raised by the tearned -^tuty, aoiisnf pTq3 -/PS •S}SOO ON •pSSSILUSip •8J0^8J84t •S, UOItBSd »!.IM 841 •eogsnf^o e.nije, /,ue puy iou op | ^p,o peuBndui, ^ ^ ej^etui pue uoiinijisuoo 94^0 Q^ a|3iwjspun ui-dsis pinoqs pnoo W ^^ 8SB3 ,y B ,ou s..s|4i .oooz ^ 09i •ON •V-d-1 ui ynoo q6,H qsspejd eAqpeytj sqi ^o youag uoisiAia 04} ^ }uaiu6pnf eq} pue eSpnp eiSuis peujeei 94, ^ jspjo 94, jo siseq 941 uo se<A sesunoo joiuss -^ ..