{ gK rt—y M4 C7} BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF'CHHATTISGARH A \ BILASPUR. WP[C] No&%}§./09 Sim’fiE 3E§5$H / Babban Choudhry, S/o Late Gaya Choudhr. y, Aged about 64 years, Rlo Bankimongra, Katghora (Tah) Korba Dist, CG State.‘ etio: Pitners Vs / 1.:State of C.,G. , . Mr Through: Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Dept, Govt. of CG, ‘ DKS Bhawan, Raipur, CG’ State. Respondentg: ?» , WRIT PETITN-VUNDER ARTICLE r226 0F, THE CONSTITUIIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE IOF APPROPRIATE WRITSISI ORDERISI DIRECTIOM_S] ETC. k T . ‘ ,.a D _ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7276 OF 2009 Babban Choudhry Versus State of C.G. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24th day of June, 2010) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief(s) : a) To call for the entire records of the case from the respondents for its kind perusal. b) To issue a writ of certiorari for any other Writ or order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 24/10/09 passed by the respondents removing the name of the petitioner from the statutory register of notaries kept and maintained by' them under the mandatory provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. .c) To award the cost and expenses of this petition. Briefly stated, grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted a license of Notary asper Notaries Act,‘ 1952 (in short “the Act, 1952) for a period of five years w.e.f. 3/9/1998 vide Annexure P/2. The petitioner. submitted his application for renewal of his notarial licence before expiry of five years after fulfilling the formalities as per provisions of the Act, 1952 vide Annexure P/3. After receiving the above application, respondent authorities sent the same along with recommendations for renewal of the licence, but the same has not been consndered and thereafter It was Informed to the petitioner that the State Government has deCIded not to renew notanal llcense In the name of the petitioner as Is ewdent from letter dated 24-10-2009 (Annexure — P/1 ). Thus, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, reported in 2005 LT. (C.G.) 50, argues that the government while considering the application for renewal of certificate of notary is required to consider each individual case and find out whether on merits particular person is entitled for renewal of the 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. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to indicate that by any executive order the State will be entitled to’ debar all the Notaries from renewal of their certificates. On the other hand, the respondents, in their return or during oral arguments, have not disputed the averments 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 authorities had recommended the case of the petitioner for renewal of his notarial licence. However, it was contended that the petitioner does not have any iegal right for being appointed as Notary nor does he have a right that his application for renewal of his Notariai licence- should be allowed compulsoriiy only on its mere submission. The renewal has been refused With a purpose to give fair opportunity to the fresh advocates to act as Notary. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. ln Chandra Prakash Sharma (supra) this Court while considering the contention of the petitioner that his application for renewal of notarial licence has been refused without assigning any reason, after elaborately discussing the provisions of the Act of 1952, Notary Rules, 1956 and the subsequent amendment, held that the purpose behind the Act is that the Government while 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 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 performance for the period while he was practicing as Notary Public. In the instant case, admittedly, the application for renewal of notarial licence of the petitioner has been refused without considering his past performance as Notary Public and without considering the recommendations ln these circumstances, the order of Annexure P/1 cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed; lmpugned order 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. No order asto costs. J ma \e" / J F Sd/- ,_ Satish K. Agnihotrii, , 2 Judge ‘