1 2026:CGHC:6259 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3681 of 2021 Reserved on 22/01/2026 Pronounced on 04/02/2026 Rajhans Matiyara, S/o Rajmal Matiyara, Aged About 53 Years R/o H.No. 10, Ward No. 1, Daspur, Dashpur, North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District And Sessions Judge, Officer Of District And Sessions Court North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashok Chaurasiya, S/o Late Ram Gulam Chaurasiya, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Assistant Labour Officer, Official Address Collectorate, Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate appears alongwith Mr. Pushpa Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : None, though served. PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.04 16:41:15 +0530 2 Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV ORDER 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/06/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Secretary/Additional Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur, whereby, his name has been removed from the Notary Register in exercise of the powers provided under Section 10(d) of The Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1952”). 2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner’s name, who was performing his duty as a “Notary” in District- Kanker, has been removed from the Register of Notary maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952, based upon the enquiry held on the basis of the complaint made on 19/06/2020 by the respondent No.4- Ashok Chaurasiya. According to the complaint made by him before the In-charge, Police Station- Kanker, District- Kanker, it appears that, a house-in-question bearing No.63 situated at village- Thelkabod, Kanker was booked in the name of his brother, in Chhattisgarh Housing Board and was fallen in his share subsequently and was registered accordingly, in his name. It is alleged by him that, the key of the house-in- question was given to one Najeeb Qureshi for its care, who was a close friend, like a brother, of his wife, who had later on, 3 shown a deed known as “Ikrarnama” for the alienation of his alleged house to one Smt. Seema Bano wife of Haneef Khan, though, no document as such was, however, executed by him. Further of his allegation was that, a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- was purchased from the stamp vendor, namely, Smt. Uma Sahu, in the name of said Seema bano, while putting a false signature of her and without intimating to him, said Najeeb Qureshi, has got his signature on plain paper and that by attaching the same to the alleged stamp paper, got it notarized with the notary- Rajhans Matiyara, the petitioner herein, on 08/01/2016, though, he was not there on the said day at District- Kanker and, based upon his alleged allegation, it was prayed for initiation of the offence of criminal breach of trust against said Najeeb Qureshi, while forwarding a copy of it to the Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur for taking an appropriate action against the petitioner as well. 3. 3. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry was initiated, while supplying a copy of it to the petitioner on 18/08/2020, who in turn, has submitted his reply (Annexure R/2) admitting the fact that the alleged agreement was got notarized by him on 08/01/2016, but due to hurriedness, it was escaped over to get it entered in the Register and, during the course of enquiry, the statements of the attesting witnesses of the alleged agreement, alongwith the complainant and the petitioner were 4 recorded, where the alleged allegation was found to be proved as evidenced by the enquiry report, dated 23/03/2021, as the petitioner has admitted that, after the notarization of the alleged document on 08/01/2016, he failed to get it entered in his Register, as a result of which, he was held guilty for the violation of Rule 11(9) of The Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1956”) framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers provided under Section 15 of the Act, 1952 and, in consequence, the respondent No.2, vide its order impugned has directed for the removal of his name from the Notary Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952 and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. While inviting attention to sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, submits that, since the alleged complaint was not made in the prescribed proforma, i.e. Form No.XIII appended to the Rules, 1956, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated in absence of the complaint in the prescribed proforma and consequent upon the order impugned, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and, deserves to be quashed. Further, while inviting attention to sub-rule (9) of the said Rule, it is contended that, since the 5 right of defence has not been provided to the petitioner in its proper manner for cross-examination of the witnesses examined during enquiry, the order impugned, therefore, deserves to be quashed on this ground as well. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have drawn attention towards the admission of the petitioner with regard to the fact that, despite notarization of the alleged agreement, he failed to make its entry in the Register, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned has been passed either without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to him, or has been passed in violation of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956. It is, therefore, contended that, no interference is required to be made in the order impugned passed by respondent No.2, directing for removal of his name from the Notary Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition. 7. In order to ascertain the facts as to whether the petitioner, while performing his duties as a “Notary”, has committed any professional or other misconduct or not, for which, the provision prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, is to be seen, which provides as under:- “13. Inquiry into the allegations of professional or other misconduct of a notary.-[(1) An inquiry into 6 the misconduct of a notary may be initiated either suo motu by the appropriate Government or on a complaint received in Form XIII.] (2) Every such complaint shall contain the following particulars, 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. (4) Within sixty days ordinarily of the receipt of complaint, the appropriate Government shall send a copy thereof to the notary at his address as entered in the Register of Notaries. [(4A) Where an inquiry is initiated, suo motu by the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government shall send to the notary a statement specifying the charge or charges against him, together with particulars of the oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support of such charge or charges.] 7 (5) [A notary against whom an inquiry has been initiated may, within fourteen days of the service on him of a copy of the complaint under sub-rule (4) or of the statement of the charges under sub-rule (4A) as the case may be,] or within such time as may be extended by the appropriate Government, forward to that Government a written statement in his defence verified in the same manner as a pleading in a civil court. (6) If on a persual of [the written statement,] if any, of the notary concerned and other relevant documents and papers, the appropriate Government consider that there is a prima facie case against such notary, the appropriate Government shall cause an inquiry to be made in the matter by the competent authority. If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case against the notary concerned, [the complaint or charge shall be filed) and the complainant and the notary concerned shall be informed accordingly. [(7) Every notice issued to a notary under this rule shall be sent to him by registered post. If any such notice is returned unserved with an endorsement indicating that the addressee has refused to accept the notice or the notice is not returned unserved within a period of thirty days from the date of its despatch, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon the notary.] (8) It shall be the duty of the appropriate Government to place before the competent authority all facts 8 brought to its knowledge which are relevant for the purpose of an inquiry by the competent authority. (9) A notary who is proceeded against shall have right to defend himself before the competent authority either in person or through a legal practitioner or any other notary. (10) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the competent authority shall have the power to regulate his procedure relating to the inquiry in such manner as he considers necessary and during the course of inquiry, may examine witnesses and receive any other oral or documentary evidence. (11) The competent authority shall submit his report to the Government entrusting him with the inquiry. (12) (a) The appropriate Government shall consider the report of the competent authority, and if in its opinion a further inquiry is necessary, may cause such further inquiry to be made and a further report submitted by the competent authority. (b) If after considering the report of the competent authority, the appropriate Government is of the opinion that action should be taken against the notary the appropriate Government may make an order- (i) cancelling the certificate of practice and perpetually debarring the notary from practice; or (ii) suspending him from practice for a specified period; or (iii) letting him off with a warning, according to the nature and gravity of the misconduct of the notary proved. 9 (13) Notification of removal—The removal of the name of any notary from the Register of Notaries from practice, as the case may be, shall be notified in Official Gazette and shall also be communicated in writing to the notary concerned.]” 8. According to sub-rule (1) of the aforesaid Rule, an enquiry into the misconduct of a notary may be initiated either suo-moto by the appropriate Government, or on the basis of a complaint received in Form XIII and, if the complaint is not made either in the prescribed proforma, i.e. Form No.XIII, appended to the Rules framed by Central Government under Section 15 of the Act, 1952, or does not contain the particulars provided under sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid Rule, then, in such an eventuality, it has to be returned by the appropriate Government for its representation after compliance as required with such objections and within such time, as provided under sub-rule (3) of the aforesaid Rule. 9. In the instant matter, the enquiry into the misconduct of a petitioner, who is performing his duty as a Notary, was initiated on the basis of the complaint dated 19/06/2020 made by the respondent No.4- Ashok Chaurasiya. The alleged complaint furnished by the State Government in its Return alongwith the notice (Annexure R/1) dated 18/08/2020 issued to the petitioner would reveal the fact that, it was not made in the prescribed proforma, i.e. Form No.XIII, appended to the Rules, 1956. The alleged complaint is, thus, apparently not found to 10 be made in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, nor was returned by the appropriate Government for its representation, as required under sub-rule (3) of the above-mentioned Rule, yet the entire enquiry was conducted. 10. That apart, a bare perusal of the alleged complaint would, however, reveal the fact that, in fact no allegation, whatsoever, was made by respondent No.4- Ashok Chaurasiya against the petitioner, except forwarding a copy of it to the appropriate Government and rather, it appears to have been made only against said Najeeb Qureshi for registration of an offence with regard to the criminal breach of trust, to whom, the key of his house-in-question was handed over for its care, as observed in the preceding paragraph. 11. 11. It is to be noted here further that the alleged agreement was notarized by the petitioner on 08/01/2016, but no complaint whatsoever or suo-moto action was taken against him by the appropriate Government immediately thereafter and the objection, so made in the alleged complaint was found to be made much after the notarization of the alleged agreement, dated 08/01/2016, i.e., after passing of a considerable period of more than four and half years and, even upon a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that it was not only entirely on a different footing, but appears to have been made only against said Najeeb Qureshi, who committed mischief with him, for registration of an offence against him for criminal 11 breach of trust, yet the respondent No.2 without considering the said fact, has directed for removal of his name from the Notary Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952. 12. Pertinently to be noted here further, as revealed from the enquiry proceedings, that immediately after the examination- in-chief of the complainant – Ashok Chaurasiya on 23/03/2021, his evidence was closed without permitting the petitioner to cross-examine him, though, by virtue of sub-rule (9) of Rule13 of the Rules, 1956, he has a right to defend himself before the said authority. The order impugned has, thus, found to be passed in gross violation of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956 and, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law from stretch of any imagination. 13. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 29/06/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Secretary/Additional Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur, removing the petitioner’s name from the Notary Register maintained under Section 4 of the Act, 1952 is, hereby, quashed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant