1 2025:CGHC:32005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5468 of 2024 1 - Mrs. Vimla Sharma D/o Late Beni Madhav Sharma Aged About 71 Years Occupation - Advocate Notary R/o Lattipara Kanker, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar-Bastar-Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - District And Session Judge Uttar-Bastar-Kanker, District Uttar- Bastar-Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - (Deleted) Mrs. Leena Agrawal (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-02-2025) 4 - Mrs. Radha Shrivastava W/o Devilal Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Tulsi, Village Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Mrs. Rukhmani Shrivastava W/o Bharat Lal Shrivastava Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Harrapadav, Keshkal, District Uttar-Bastar- Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.14 11:13:50 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.5 : : : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate through VC Shri S.P.Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/07/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1/Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh whereby the name of the petitioner has been removed from the register of the notaries and is seeking for the following reliefs: “ 10.1. this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or appropriate writ, by which set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.2. That any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order and the inquiry report does not reflect the conduct of the petitioner being taken into consideration for removal. He further submits that in the present case, no complaint in form XIII has been received by the appropriate government and the inquiry initiated is in breach of Section 10(d) of the Notaries ct, 1952 which provides for the following “Prescribed Procedure” which is reflected in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956. He further submits that the appropriate government shall return a 3 complaint which is not in proper form or which does not contain the acts and omissions of the petitioner which render her unfit to the notary and about oral and documentary evidence relied upon in support of the complaint. He submits that the statements of the petitioner and witness of consent letter Annexure P-7 were relevant but the enquiry officer- respondent NO.3 has not examined the same. The duty of the appropriate government is mandatory. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the authority under the Act of 1952 as per rule 8 (4) of the Rules of 1956 lie with the State government and therefore he is merely a formal party having no direct nexus and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has not sought any relief in the prayer clause against the respondents therefore also it may be dismissed on this ground as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State government has no valid mandatory provisions of Rule 13 of the Notary Rules,1956. The complainant has not made complaint in the form of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1956 and therefore the appropriate government shall return a complaint which is not in proper form and direct them to comply in proper form. Rule 13(1)(2) and (3) of the Notaries Rules 1956 provides as under: “13. [ Inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a notary. -(1) An inquiry into the misconduct of a notary may be initiated either suo motu by the appropriate Government or on a complaint received in Form XIII.] [ Substituted by G.S.R. 1056, dated 30.10.1958.](2)[ Every such complaint shall contain the following particulars, 4 namely:-(a)the acts and omissions which, if proved, would render the person complained against unfit to be a notary;(b)the oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support of the allegations made in the complaint.(3)The appropriate Government shall return a complaint which is not in the proper Form or which does not contain the aforesaid particulars to the complainant for representation after compliance with such objections and within such times as the appropriate Government may specify:Provided that if the subject-matter in a complaint is, in the opinion of the said Government substantially the same as or covered by, any previous complaint and if there is no additional ground, the said Government shall file the said complaint without any further action and inform the complainant accordingly.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From bare perusal of Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1956, it is clear that enquiry on the misconduct of a Notary may be initiated suo motu by appropriate government or on a complaint received in Form XIII. The State government has received complaint made by respondent NO.4 and after due enquiry and examination of the witnesses and giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has found that the petitioner has committed misconduct of the provisions of Notary Rules, 1956. Therefore in the considered view of this Court, the respondent No.1 has passed the order impugned in accordance with law and needs no interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge