1 2025:CGHC:47360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5665 of 2024 Krishnkant Dube S/o Late Dileshwar Dube Aged About 55 Years Caste Bramhan R/o Village Pratapgarh Police Station And Teshil Sitapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Secretary Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh Law And Legislative Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Surguja At Ambikapur For Government Of Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 2 15/09/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ and /or an order in the nature of appropriate writ to issue call the records from the respondent authorities pertaining to case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court if thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ and /or an order in the nature of appropriate writ to quash / set aside the order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent State in the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice. (iii) Cost of the proceedings. (iv) Any other relief or relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. (v) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant further liberty to the petitioner to apply for renewal of his notary license for a further period of 5 years from 2023 to 2028 after the impugned Annexure P/1 is quashed and is license is renewed up till the year 2023. The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to enable of the same which application they may consider within some stipulated period of time.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner’s certificate of Notary has not been renewed. 3 4. 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 and has renewed the same from time to time. His certificate was also renewed from the from 23.05.2013 to 22.05.2018, but, without assigning any proper reason his application for renewal of the certificate was kept pending from 22.05.2018 to 21.05.2023 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. 5. 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 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 4 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. 6. 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. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case. He further submits that the application made by the petitioner for renewal of the certificate was rejected by the authorities strictly in accordance with law. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with due care. 5 9. 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.” 10.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 contrary to the provisions contained in Section 10 (a) to (f) of the Notaries Act, 1952. 11. 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 20.10.2022. The petitioner moved application for renewal of the certificate before the respondent authorities within 6 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 20.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. 12. 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. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant