'reiiEtii +IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CG.) WRIT PETITION No.229^ OF 2003 / PETITIONER Ghanshyam Das Gangwani, S/o. Late Shri Wadhumal Gangawa-oi, aged about 59 years, resident ofm&ont ofLaxmi TaUdes, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 2. .^w^- ^^y v^ .^y <-' «<?*'-.•-" ^ State of Chhattisgarh . Through Prmcipal Secretary ofLaw, Department ofLaw and Legislature of Chhatdsgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Disto'ict and Session Judge Bilaspur/Competent, Authority under Notary Rules, District Bilaspur (C.G.) \<$.^^-'u^. '~~~~' ^av^y fr 3. Deputy Secretary, State of CUhattisgarh, Department of Law and Legislature of CUhhatdsgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. District Magistrate, Bilaspur Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. -^ 53 ^•^; &- GT w'- it^. -.1 i^". » 9 I" "0 • Kc. (,fi. ^"Y \f\l s W'- ®^ '<"iS ,„ '^ ". c^^_ .„. 1 S? 0 a c; y ? <lti t-i i-. rt rt- 6 •, rf e O » 105- rt o a o e; fll S' f ^ 0 I <? B *. .' ft- a ?> u (B !3 t) s; n •<" t? ffi I- li.1 13 I- !-'• ia • 1-- Blft § o Mi r?_ '-3T 5 s3^;. XI-HC-22 an^ST<iiT f^rtdian^sT .^-<ii<ntilsci rijfti%^ WMSKS-^ ,./' KgiSStgtte?' Gowri r.^ ».r ^SET -^l^lrffl, y-alt-i'ic, Rrtwyt <4|t<ril {pTfTip 3n^9Tq^. 1 ^,e" z^i^_ •/••••WT. 200 f?reqq aii^nOTnT^'^if^T 28-4-2005 Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsel forl Shri Yashwant Singh, Govt. ^ Panet Lawyer for the State. Heard. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel is exactly covered by the declslon oft| of cases pertaining to Notary. He furflher be listed alongwith that bateh of oas^s. 28(b) ofthe said order, which is releva|nt Conseifuently, rene^iat '28ft). quashtnent cf thi December, 200. refusal of petltionersin W.i anct 624/2003. renewat stancf are alkswed." On the last date of hearlng, State to point out the difference. No submlts that the matter is covered by 3-2005 in writ petitlon No.3247/2003 (< Chhattlsaarh and anottier) and othe Having thus consictered and 24-3-2005 similar cases, this petition is allowed certificate to practice as Notary public directed to consider the case of the p the same in accordance with law. <hl^lfd41'1 tIItIcSf^'fec^ -(|ui«i-< ^Slf^TTSII^CT he petltioner. idvocate and Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, br the petitioner submits that the matter ils Court passed on 24-3-2005 in bateh submits that some how it could not He also relied upon the paragraph and quoted below: on ssoount of impugned ofder dated 31 which is the basis for of certificates of Une f.Nos.494/2003, 1894/2003 \Vie orders refusing their q^iashed and these petitksns tirtie was taken by leamed counsel for the ^, the counselappearing for the State |ie decision of thls Court passed on 24- Phancfrs PratesA SAarnteK& Stete of similarcases. |r the reasons stated in the order dated passed in the case of Cftan(iln9 nadasft Shanna (supra) and other a|ndthe order for refusing renewat ofthe is quash^t. The State Government is )yitioner on its own merits and declded Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge (VS qioq