Hon'ble LODHA, J.- These writ petitions involve a common question or law as regards to petitioners legal right for renewal of the certificate or practice as a Notary, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of writ petition No. 10569/09 "Tarun Mehta & Ors. vs. State or Rajasthan & Ors." which was taken as a lead case by the learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of arguments are being taken into consideration.

3. The petitioners were appointed as notaries under the provisions of Notaries Act, 1952 (in short "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder namely Notaries Rules, 1956 (in short "the Rules") by the State Government by c common order dated 14.11.02. The petitioners were authorised to practice as notary in Pali, District Pali for a period of five years from the date of issuance of certificate in this regard. The certificates in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules were issued in their favour on 26.11.02. Before the expiry of the period fixed in the order dated 14.11.02, the petitioners preferred applications for renewal of their certificates of practice after payment of prescribed fee. The petitioners in the writ petition namely Tarun Mehta, Om Prakash Kachhwaha and Mangi Lal Choudhary applied for renewal on 25.10.07, 3.10.07 and 25.10.07 respectively. On the petitioners submitting the application for renewal as aforesaid, the Deputy Secretary, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan requisitioned the report regarding the petitioners working as notaries during the preceding five years vide communication dated 21.8.08 from the District & Sessions Judge, Pali. Pursuant to communication dated 21.8.08, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali called the petitioners for furnishing the relevant record and registers maintained by them for inspection. However, all of a sudden, the petitioners have received the communications dated 29.10.09 intimating that as per the decision taken by the State Government under the provisions of the Act and the Rules as amended, their certificates authorising them to practice as a notary are not renewed and therefore, they may stop working as a notary forthwith under the said certificate of authorisation. Hence, these petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.S. Singhvi submitted that the communications intimating refusal to renew the certificate of authorisation and directing the petitioners to stop working as notaries are illegal inasmuch as, the same have been issued in gross violation of the provisions of the Rules which govern the renewal as also the basic principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that under the Act or the Rules, there is no provision authorising the State Government to refuse the renewal, on the contrary, the scheme of the Act and the Rules clearly envisages that the renewal of certificate of authorisation has to be granted as of right subject to the conditions of submissions of the applications and payment of the prescribed fees. Learned counsel submitted that the circumstances under which the name of appointed notary could be removed from the register maintained by the State Government u/S. 4, are clearly mentioned u/S. 10 of the Act. It is submitted that none of these conditions mentioned stand satisfied in the instant cases and therefore, it was not open for the State Government to have refused renewal to the petitioners.

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners continued to discharge the duties of the notary pending consideration of their applications for renewal and the same having not been granted or refused by the State Government within the reasonable time, their renewal shall be deemed to have been granted. Learned counsel submitted that the renewal has been refused in the garb of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as amended but the Rules as amended prescribes a different procedure than existing for app