Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.23 12:00:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:42635-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 73 of 2025 Madan Singh Rathiya S/o Late Ghasiram Rathiya, Aged About 62 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village Jamarga, Tahsil- Kapoo, District Raigarh (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Additional Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District And Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The President, District Court Bar Association, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Pintu Prasad Soni S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Soni, Notary, Tahsil Kapoo, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Vivekanand Shukla S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Shukla, Notary, Tahsil Kapoo, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Manoj Kumar Dansena S/o Late Nohar Sai Dansena, R/o Village And Post- Kumarta, Tahsil- Kapoo, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav and Mr. Atul Gavel, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav and Mr. Atul Gavel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the orders dated 15.07.2025 for appointment of respondents no. 4 & 5 as Notary for Tahsil-Kapoo, issued by respondent no. 1 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to appoint the eligible advocate as Notary for Tahsil-Kapoo, District-Raigarh (C.G.), who is residing within limit of Tahsil-Kapoo, in accordance with provisions of governing Notary Rules, 1956. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner is an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, actively working 3 for the upliftment of poor farmers and highlighting their issues. On 05.10.2023, respondent No.1 issued a notice inviting applications from eligible advocates for appointment as Notaries in various Tehsils, including two posts for Tehsil-Kapoo (Annexure P/2). Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 also issued a similar notice on 06.10.2023 (Annexure P/3). In response, respondents No.4 to 6 applied for appointment as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo. However, respondents No.4 and 5 are residents and voters of Tehsil- Dharamjaigarh, and not of Tehsil-Kapoo (Annexure P/4), whereas respondent No.6 is a permanent resident of Tehsil-Kapoo (Annexure P/5). The candidates were called for interview on 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/6), and subsequently, respondents No.4 and 5 were appointed as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo by the impugned order. The appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 is alleged to be in violation of Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which requires the Notary to be resident within the area of appointment. Sarpanchas of 37 Gram Panchayats lodged complaints against the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5, highlighting the inconvenience caused to the residents of Tehsil- Kapoo. However, no action has been taken till date (Annexure P/7). Due to their appointment, villagers of Tehsil-Kapoo would be compelled to travel to Tehsil-Dharamjaigarh for notarial work, despite Tehsil-Kapoo being upgraded as a separate Tehsil for the convenience of its 60 villages. The villagers have expressed dissatisfaction and raised objections against the appointment, 4 which has also been reported in local newspapers (Annexure P/8). Thus, the impugned appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo is highly inconvenient for the local residents and contrary to the statutory requirements. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025, whereby respondents No.4 and 5 have been appointed as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo, is bad in law, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. It is contended that the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 is in clear violation of Rule 7(3)(a) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which mandates that a person appointed as Notary must be “ordinarily residing” within the area of appointment. In the present case, both respondents No.4 and 5 are admittedly residents and voters of Tehsil- Dharamjaigarh and are not ordinarily residing within Tehsil-Kapoo. Hence, they are statutorily ineligible for appointment as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo. It is further submitted that respondent No.6, who had also applied for appointment, is a permanent resident of Tehsil-Kapoo and is practicing within the said Tehsil. However, his candidature has been ignored without assigning any cogent reasons, while respondents No.4 and 5 being the blue-eyed candidates of respondent No.1 have been illegally appointed. Such action is arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the governing statutory provisions. Learned counsel would further submit that the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 has caused grave inconvenience to the local residents of Tehsil-Kapoo. Since they 5 are residents of Tehsil-Dharamjaigarh, the villagers of Tehsil- Kapoo would be compelled to travel to Dharamjaigarh for notarial work, which defeats the very purpose of establishing Tehsil-Kapoo for the convenience of its 60 villages. It is also submitted that the Sarpanchas of as many as 37 Gram Panchayats have lodged complaints against the impugned appointments, pointing out the hardships faced by the villagers. Despite such representations, the authorities have not taken any corrective action till date. The resentment of the villagers has also been reported in local newspapers, demonstrating that the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 is against the interest of the general public. As such, the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 appointing respondents No.4 and 5 as Notaries for Tehsil-Kapoo be quashed, and necessary directions be issued to make appointments strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Rules, 1956. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5 has been made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956, after due consideration of all eligible candidates. It is further submitted that the reliefs prayed for in the present petition cannot be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation, and if any person is genuinely aggrieved by the said appointment, he or she is at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy by filing a separate petition before the competent forum in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 pleadings, this Court finds that the petitioner is not an affected person, and in fact, when a specific query was made to him, he was unable to disclose in what capacity he has filed the present petition and merely stated that he is a member of the Janpad Panchayat, Dharamjaigarh, and is actively working for the upliftment of poor farmers and for highlighting their issues. Such circumstances clearly dis-entitle him from invoking this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under guise of Public Interest Litigation. 7. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 8. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 7 1029 and other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 9. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. Vs. 8 Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under: “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters —government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond 9 hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and 10 seriousness involved. The Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. 12. In the present case, the issues raised by the petitioner essentially pertain to matters falling within the domain of the competent statutory authorities, and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that such issues involve any infringement of the rights of the public at large. On the contrary, it is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner himself is not an affected person and, when queried, was unable to explain in what capacity he has filed the present petition. The petitioner has also failed to establish credentials free from personal interest, which is a sine qua non for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the garb of a Public Interest Litigation. 13. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the present petition, tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, does not meet the requirements of a bona fide PIL. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, we are satisfied that the present petition does not qualify as a 11 genuine Public Interest Litigation, but rather an attempt to espouse a cause, which is not really connected to him under the garb of public interest. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is observed that if any person is genuinely aggrieved by the appointment in question, he or she shall be at liberty to file an appropriate writ petition in his of her individual capacity for redressal of such grievance before the appropriate forum. 16. The security amount deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing of this petition shall stand forfeited, so as to deter the filing of frivolous petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu