IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (C) No. ’? 22L 6 12009 etitioner : / Mohd. Hai, S/o Late M. A. Qaiyum, Aged about 72 years, R/o Marathapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus espondents : /1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Under Secretary, Department of Law & Legisiative Affairs, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P R / HIGH COURT OF CHHA-iTiSGARH AT BQLASPUR WRIT PETIT!ON (C) N0. 7226 of 2009 Mohd. Hai State af Chhattisgarh 8: another. Peiitioner Respondent WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF iNDlA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Sau'sh K. Agnihotri, J.) Versus Present- Shri Adil Minhaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORoER (ORAL) (Passed on 1.4m Day or rune, 2010) 1. By this petition, 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 P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner‘s application for renewal of his Notarial certificate has been refused. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 11/09/2009 (Annexure PH) has been passed without assigning any reason and contention of the respondents in their return is that the notarial certificate to the petitioner has been refused with an object to afford new persons an opportunity to discharge the duties of Notary. Learned counsel further submits that the dispute involved in this petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated ‘16/11/2009 passed in W.P. (C) .No. 5363/2009 (Mahanand Mishra V/s State of C. G. & others) 3. The above fact has not been disputed by Shri Kachhawaha, learned Deputy Advocate Gen'eal appearing tor the State/respondents and he submits that the instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Mahanano’ Mishra {supra}. ln view of the submissions made by teamed counsel 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 Pl1) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits and decide the same in accordance with law. l Judge i. l Sdl- } Satish K. Agnihotri ,v' . Aron