2026:CGHC:3113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2352 of 2022

1 - Ratnesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Keshav Prasad Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Baikona, Tehsil Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Deputy Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate.

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

19/01/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

(1) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Deputy Secretary, Law and Legislative Department and the authorities may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for renewal and they may further be directed to restore his name in the register maintained by the government med under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952.

2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit an proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate, he has been appointed as ‘Notary’ at Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.). By the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs necessary certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 23.12.2008 for a period of ‘5 years’ and upon completion of 5 years, his certificate was renewed from time to time for further period of 5 years, however, vide order dated 20.04.2022, State Government has decided not to renew the notary certificate of the petitioner and, thereafter, striking of his name from the register of Natary, Hence, this writ petition.

4. Contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the State Government while passing the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 Annexure P-1, neither assign any reasons nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also ignored the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 as also the Rule 13 (4-a) of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The allegations contained in notice dated 28.10.2021 is the foundation of refusal to renew the certificate of petitioner, however, neither any enquiry has been conducted with regard to said allegation nor the prescribed procedure has been followed as envisaged under the Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. Before expiry of the licence, petitioner has filed an application Annexure P-5 for renewal of the certificate of Notary before the competent Authority, which is pending for consideration yet. Hence, the petitioner has came-up before this Court with the aforesaid prayer. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decisions / orders dated 09.10.2023 &

17.03.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 3066 / 2022 & WPC No. 4604 / 2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the respondent Authority has passed the impugned order Annexure P-1 after taking into consideration the entire facts of the case. He further submits that application /representation made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence was rejected by the authorities strictly in accordance with law. As such, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties an