1 2025:CGHC:25920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2394 of 2021 1 - Yogendra Kumar Mahile (Advocate) Son Of Jagdish Ram Mahile Aged About 45 Years Presently R/o. Qtr. No. 92, Purani Basti, Saigona, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law And Legislature Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Administrative Officer Office Of District And Session Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Rajendra Barle (Advocate) Notary Tahsil Court, Kawardha, R/o Village Heerapur, Post Dashrangpur, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.06.2025 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the Petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs/order/ or orders / to quashed the appointment of the respondent no. 3, on the post of Notary, at Tahsil Court Kawardha, District: Kabirdham (C.G.), and further be direct to the respondent department, to appoint the petitioner, on the post of Notary. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. It appears that the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Notary at the Tehsil Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham; however, he has not annexed a copy of the appointment order. Instead, he has annexed a list of candidates who were called for the interview. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the very order whereby respondent No.3 was appointed as a Notary Advocate, the petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi