Murli Manohar Upreti v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

: Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For : Shri S.S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Respondent/State Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board

22.01.2025 2

Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition -

I. Quash / set aside the order dated 16/12/2022 issue by respondent No.2. II. Direct the respondents to add the name of the petitioner in the Register or Notaries, by renewing his licence of Notary. III. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16/12/2022 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the Notary Register. It is submitted that the petitioner has been practicing since 2007 within the limits of Tahsil- Bhanuprattapur, District -Uttar Bastar, Kanker. The license of notary was initially issued on 09/05/1996 and thereafter it was being renewed from time to time. Thereafter, an application for renewal was made on 17/11/2021 to the Law and Legislative Affairs department, Government of Chhattisgarh with a delay of about 19 day. The justification of delay was attached to the application as the petitioner was not having knowledge about the amendment in rules and unavailability of stamp papers. He submits that the impugned order does not reflect any reason as to why his application was rejected.

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the application of the petitioner was made belatedly. He submits that the license of the 3 notary issued in accordance with the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and rules made thereunder i.e. Notaries Rules, 1956 and according to the amendment incorporated in Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules, the application for renewal ought to have been made before 6 months from the date of expiry of its period. He submits that the application was made beyond the period of limitation, therefore, the application was not considered.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The impugned order is required to be quoted herein below - // आदेश // रायपुर, दिदनांक 16/12/2022 क.13893/3333/21-ब/छ.ग./2022 राज्य शासन, एत्ቛारा ्ቦी एम.एम उत््ቚेतित, अति(cid:31)व्ሹा/नोटरी, वृቈኌ&क स्थल- भानु्ቚतापपुर, जि-ला उ&र बस्तर कांके र के ्ቛारा नोटरी व्यवसाय ्ቚमाण-प्ቔ नवीनीकरण हेतु ्ቚस्तुत आवेदन दिनरस्त करते हुए ्ቦी एम.एम उत््ቚेतित, अति(cid:31)वव&ा / नोटरी, वृቈኌ&क स्थल- भानु्ቚतापपुर, जि-ला-उ&र बस्तर कांके र (छ.ग.) का नाम नोटरी रजि-स्टर से दिवलोदिपत करता है। छ&ीसगढ़ के राज्यपाल के नाम से तथा आदेशानुसार, Sd/- (अदिनल कु मार पाण्डेय) अतितरिर्ሹ सति9व छ.ग. शासन, दिवति(cid:31) एवं दिव(cid:31)ायी काय: दिवभाग

The order only indicates that the application for renewal for grant of license of notary was simplicitor rejected and name of the petitioner 4 was deleted from the register maintained for notaries, place – Bhanupratappur district – Uttar Bastar Kanker, CG.

Learned counsel for respondents tried to submit before this Court that the application was made by the petitioner belatedly. Such reason does not appear from the impugned order. There is no reason assigned in the impugned order as to why the application was rejected.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submit that meanwhile the petitioner may be restrained from performing his duty as Notary.

It is also observed that till decision is taken on the application of the petitioner, he shall not perform his duty as Notary. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib