Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J Writ Petition tC) No. 5363 of2009 Mahanand Mishra, Son of Shri Tulsiram Mishra, aged about 50 years, Occupation Advocate, Resjdent of Adarsh Nagar, Sitapur, District Surguja Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The DJstrict and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Present Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (16th November, 2009) Dhirendra Mi^ira. J 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief(3): "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kmdly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to jssue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2009 vide Annexure P-1 issued bythe respondent No.2. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of licence ofthe Notary within stipulated period. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deed frt and proper jn the facte and circumstances ofthe case. 10.5 Cost of the petition." 2. Briefly stated, grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted a licence of Notary as per Notaries Act, 1952 (in short "the Act, 1952") for a period of five years w.e.f. 3rd Mareh, 2004 vkle Annexure P/2. The petitioner submitted his application for renewal of his notarial licence before expiry of five years on 15.1.2009 after fulfilling the formalities as per provisionsofthe Act, 1952 vide Annexure P/3. After receiving the above application, respondent No.3 sent the same along with recommendatlons for renewal of ttie licence vide Annexure P/4. However, the petitioner was called upon by respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 to submit the original register of Notary along with receipt book from the month of October, 2008 to December, 2008 vide Annexures P/5 & P/6. The petitioner submitted the record as directed. Thereafter, respondsnt No.3 vide its memo dated 7th August, 2009 (Annexure P/8) informed the Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs, that there is no complaint against the petitioner registered in his ofRce. However. the respondent No.2 vide impugned order of Annexure P/1 refused to renew the notanal licence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in the matters of Chandra Prakash Shanna Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and another, reported in 2005 LT. (CG) 50, argues that the govemment while considering the application for renewal of certificate of notary is required to consider each indMdual case and find out whether on merits particular person is entitted for renewal of the certificate or he has disentitled himself for renewat of the certificate by his acts or deeds during the period when he was practicing as Notary Public. There is nothing in the fadt or the Rules to indicate that by any executive order the State will be entitled to debar all the Notaries from renewal oftheir certificates. On the other hand. the respondents, in their return or during oral arguments. have not disputed the averment? in the petition that the petitioner applied for renewal of notarial licence before expiry of the period of five years and that there is no complaint against the petitioner regarding discharge of his duties as Notary Public, and it has been further averred that respondent No.3 had recommended the case of the petitioner for renewal of his notarial licence. However, it was contended that the petitioner does not have any legal right for being appointed as Notary nor does he have a right that his application for renewal of his notarial licence should be allowed compulsorily only on its mere submission. The renewal has been refused with a purpose to give fair opportunity to the fresh advocates to act as Notaiy. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents fiSed by the petitioner along with the petition as also the return filed bytheState. 6. !n the matter of Chandra Prakash Sharma (supra) this Court while considering the contention of the petitioner that his application for renewa! of notarial licence has been refused without assigning any reason, after elaborately discussing the provisions of the Act of 1952, Notary Ruies, 1956 and the subsequent amendment, held that the purpose behind the Act is that the Government while considenng the application for renewal of notarial licence is required to consider the case of each individual on merits to ascertain whether any partjcular person is entitled to renewal ofthe certificate or he has disentitled himself for renewal of the certificate by his acts or deeds during the period when he was practicing as Notary Public, and the same is to be decided on the basis of his peiformance for the period while he was practicing as Notary Public. 7. !n the InstanS case. admittedly, the application for renewal of notarial Iicence of the petitioner has been refused without considering his past performance 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 of Annexure P/1 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order of Annexure P/1 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/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^l 1