1 - Sadanand Prasad Gupta S/o Late Tilak Ram Sao Aged About 48 Years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.24 11:07:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:12705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4604 of 2024 1 - Sadanand Prasad Gupta S/o Late Tilak Ram Sao Aged About 48 Years Ghutarapara, Tehsil - Batoli, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., Gujarat ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District and Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 For Respondent No.3 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vibhor Goverdhan Advocate Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate through v.c. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: 2 “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records pertaining to case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside and quash the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 (ANNEXURE P/1), and the respondents may be directed to renew the Notary Certificate application of petitioner preferred in year 2018, respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to profess as Notary/Advocate, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 23.8.2023 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner’s certificate of Notary has not been renewed. 3. The petitioner is an Advocate. He was appointed as a Notary by the State Government according to the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. The petitioner has been granted the certificate of Notary since the year 2008. His certificate was also renewed from the year 2013 to 2018, but, without assigning any proper reason his application for renewal of the certificate was kept pending from the year 2018 to 2023 for 5 years and all of a sudden the impugned order has been passed. No ground or reason is assigned for terminating the certificate of the petitioner as Notary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 3 of the Notaries Act deals with power to appoint Notaries, Section 4 deals with Registers, Section 5 deals with Entry of names in the Register and issue or renewal of certificates of practice, Section 9 deals with Bar of 3 practice without certificate and Section 10 deals with Removal of names from the Register. He further submits that the name of the petitioner was entered into the register of Notaries strictly in accordance with law after following due process. He also submits that the application for renewal was moved according to the provisions of Section 5 of the Notaries Act. Section 10 of the Notaries Act provides for removal of names from the Register and according to it the Government, by an order, may remove the name of a Notary if (i) he makes such request; (ii) has not paid prescribed fee; (iii) is an undischarged insolvent, (iv) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of professional or other misconduct; (v) has been convicted by any Court for an offence involving moral turpitude, and (vi) does not get his certificate of practice renewed. It is further submitted that none of the above-mentioned conditions is stated in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner moved application for renewal within time, he paid the prescribed fee; he has not been declared undischarged insolvent, he has not been found guilty of professional misconduct, he has not been convicted by any Court for any offence involving moral turpitude, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is erroneous and liable to be set aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 submits that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case. She further submits that the application made by the 4 petitioner for renewal of the certificate was rejected by the authorities strictly in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with due care. 7. For ready reference Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 is reproduced herein below: “10. Removal of names from the Register- The Government appointing any notary may, by order, remove from the register maintained by it under Section 4, the names of the notary if he:- (a) makes a request to that effect, or (b) has not paid any prescribed tee required to be paid by him, or (c) is an undischarged insolvent; or (d) has been found, upon inquiry in the prescribed manner, to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practise as a notary, or (e) is convicted by any Court for an offence involving moral turpitude; or (f) does not get his certificate of practice renewed” 8. From a bare perusal of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952, it is quite vivid that the name of a Notary cannot be removed from the register 5 contrary to the provisions contained in Section 10 (a) to (f) of the Notaries Act, 1952. 9. In the present case, there is no mention of any of the conditions mentioned in Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 in the impugned order dated 23.8.2023. The petitioner moved application for renewal of the certificate before the respondent authorities within time and it is not a case of the respondents that such application was not moved. Respondent No.2 has passed a vague and cryptic order without assigning any reason; in that view of the matter, such order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.8.2023 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. 10. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application moved by the petitioner for renewal of the certificate of Notary afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
Decision
disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh