(S) c^, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR WRITPETITION (C) NO.5^0'^ OF 2009 PETITIONER : ..•"' .p^^/ •^**^ /-.*5?A. -»•*' ..••''l'\\--'C'yv\^'''~ '..:•"^^~\t>..-) '..•••'•^J-\"0\.F'^ ^yp s,'^'''" ... ^^.-••" {p «s RESPONDENTS Adya Shankar Tripathi, S/0 Late Shri Govind Prasad Tripathi, aged about 42 years, Occupation- Advocate, R/0 Purani Basti Kunkuri, District Jashpur, (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through theSecretary, Law Department D.K.S.Bhawan. Mantralay, Raipur, District- Raipur,(C.G.). r (2) The Deputy Secretary, Law and ( Legislative Affairs Depari:ment, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A226 OF THECONSITITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particulars of the petitioner: As stated in the cause title. 2. -. Particulars of the Respondents: As stated in the cause title ^ HtGMCQURTQRCMf-fATTI®GARM:BIO(Sf?yR PETITIQNER WRITR>ETITt0N(C)N0.5667'QF2009 Adya ShankarTrfpaftHi RESPaNDENTS Versus StateofCtihattiggarh&AnothSr (VVri etitioni.(hderAi-fiGle226-oftheGonStitution;Cjflndia)J SiBgle^Beneh : Mon'bleSl^n Satish K^^niKotri, J. Presertt:-; ;Shri^madhTripath^:^dybGatevfo f ^ SMA^Kact-j^^ Wl^l-^.^1''.':'' • ;.^ itfl ;^ !,:<. ;(:Passedont is'23^ay'(3t3W^ Theinstaritpetitiori-hasbeenlfiteet by.the^pefiti6neT: ^^ retief(s):- ; .- . : '• ! ,'.,:.:-:;:'.,..':^::'.:^.^ 10.1,.That,jfh%,Nan'B|e,CouFKmay.: he Jl^ease^; to'issue ai'Wit^nsthe^ nature-of^GertiOTSrr^by'.qt.ras^ QrderQfithe:©QvemiTjerit:refusjng't •^^ . .\^ renew , fhe; (^rtificate o^ Notafiy,i.e.'-(Anrfexure^^P/1^/ .•:'•• 10.2. Any-otHerjreHef whict1sfhi& Ho ' (^urt may-deem:fitWd:prop^^^ :also^be.,|:^sed:,jti.^{avoSr^3theAy;'^ • :.petitioner. ';:'' '.• :i'':: ,::.'...:^'^^^ Briefly st^ed,:grieyanrer(:)fthepetitr6nertsthat^;was^^tite^a :HoeHse;ofNotaryasperNotaries:Act,"t9SZ:(inst-)ort'''th Aet,'19S2); for a period ctf five years w^.f. NtR:/^gu^ P/2. The:,petifiofier submitted :his. gpplicati8n .for ren^wal: •o^.his notarial licence befbre expiry of fivg. yeal% flff 26-7-2008 Slft^r •^lfilling thg fQrrnalitieg^as per provisiQns^of the, Aet,^^9®2^^ Annexure P/3. After- receiving the ^above, appliGatien, resportdeh^ aufrtoritiessentfMesarnealQhgvviflirecornjTi^ of the lieehee, 1'But 'fhe ,&ame has. flQt?.;been ^^ thereafter, if was ir^rmed .to..the petit Governmenthas^eeidednottofenew^ot^ial^lic^s 1 5. 6. of the petitioner, as is evidenf from (Arinexure—R/1). Thus, tliis petitiEtn. lettei- dated 10-9-2D Learned counsel for the petitioner retying upon the juGtgmerft in Chandra Prakash Shamia Vs. Stafe of Ch'liattisgarh and auoffrer, reported in 2005 L. T. fC.G.J 50, argues thattRe government while considerihg the applicatioh for renewat of certificate of h&tary is reqyired to consider each tndiviclyal case and frrrd out whether ©rt merits particyiar person is entitled f&r renewal bf (he ee^ he has disentitled hirnselffor renewal of the Gertificate by nis acts or deeds during ^the p^riod wheri he was prafitiGing gis Notary Publte. There is nothing in theAet or fhe Rulesto indicate fttat by any execi-itiye order 1:lie State' will be enfitled ^o debar atl the Notaries;fronirenewal6f1:heiri;ertifiGafes.: •, On ttie other hand, th®respondehts, ifl tMeirreturfi ori:furing;.oral arguments, have not disputed the averrnents in the petition that the petjtioner applied fbr renewal of notarial lieenee Before expiry bf the period of five years and that there is no complaint against:tie petitionerregardingdiseharge6fhisdutie&a®NptaryPHbliG,^andit has been further averrea fhat respo^^t^^^^^^^^S^^^ recommended the caseofttie petitiimerfoFrenevralofliisno^ licence. Mowever, it was Gontended that tlle pefitidner Gtoes not have any legal right for being appQinted as Notary nor 9oes he' have a right that his application for renewal oftiis Notarial licerice should be aflowed compulsorily only on its; rnere'submission.;Tne' renewal has been refused'witli a purpese;tQ;gfvefa(roppfirtLinitytQ the fresh advocates to act as Notary. 1 have heard leamed courfsel forthe parties, perused th&pleadin^s .and the documents appended fhereto. . . ^fr; th Chandra Prakash Sharma (supra) thjs Court while Considering the contention of the petitioner thafffisapplrcationforrenewal^^ notarial licence has been refused wBhout assigning any feas.Ofc after elaborately cfisGussing the provisiens 6f the Act Of 1952, li; i l!l1 i J 7. 8. 9. Gowri ^^ Notary Rules, 1956 an9it^esubsequeht^amendment,Meldthi^ pt^Fposeftreh'ina ^^^ js that fhe Gov6miTie^^^^ th& applit^ion fep re notarial lieence ^is',rgcj! ire .to .QorisiderthecaseofeaGKihdividualonmeritstoascertaihwl'ietheF ahypari:iGularpeFS6niserflitledto newaloftheGertifiGate^b^^^^^^ acts or deeds;<jyring thie period whemhetwag praetidng^a^ Rublic 'anyt^the same:?is^ to laeSdeGiyedSo performarwe for the peri<^ while' tt^^ •PuBlic. :' :;'..:'' •^.- :'.:... '•,. ^ ^ .: • -•: :1 :.:'.1. :' ' In the instant case, admittedly, the applieatiQh fsr renewal^^^ o notarial lieenGe.;of the petitioner^has been refused w /• : •: "" ' '. • ' ' :' '' -: .- '.. •, ", •: : .::- considering Kis past pmlormanee as Notai^ Public and wifhou^ Gpnsidenng the recommenyaticsns. In fhese cireurris^ or^rQfAnnexureP/liGanffSfbesustaiiiedaridlhe^aimed^ •t61be:qyashed. ::,' '.':• :::,'.''.,; ::•.•'• ....'^ In the result, the; writ ^etition is.rallQWe^ 10-9-2009 ^nnexureP/1;iS^uasn^.The're[sptfrTdenfsareia^ lo co'nsider^he (^e oftlie.pefitioneroni^^ thesanre;in'aGe6rdan(:®.'with1aw.''^ :^ . ^ Noorderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •44*'«tkta3 ?