Chandra Shekhar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1180 UK

   HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1215 of 2023
Chandra Shekhar Singh                                     .......Petitioner

                                        Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                      ........ Respondents

Present :        Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
                 Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. V.S.
                 Rawat, Brief Holder for the State.


                                   JUDGMENT

Per : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of the instant petition petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the

advertisement dated 17.4.223 issued by

respondent no.1 (contained as Annexure No.4

to this writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus commanding and directing the

respondents to renew the Certificate of

Practice as Notary of the petitioner for Civil

Court, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh

Nagar.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus commanding and directing the

respondents not to restrain the petitioner as

practicing Notarized Advocate, Tehsil

Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

iv) Issue any other or further writ, order or

direction of the nature, which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of

the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

appointed as Notary on 23.05.2023 and he is working

regularly since then. His term is to expire on 28.05.2023.

He has already submitted application for renewal, on

which, report has already been submitted by the

competent authority, but decision has yet not been taken

instead an advertisement for appointment of Notary has

been issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that without considering the representation for

renewal, as made by the petitioner and without

considering the report, as submitted by the competent

authority fresh advertisement has been issued.

5. The Court wanted to know from the learned

counsel for the petitioner, as to which right of the

petitioner has been infringed? He would submit that the

petitioner has been working regularly for a long; he is

unwell; he is about 62 years of age; this is question of his

review, because as a lawyer he is not in a position to work

with such activeness.

6. In the year 2003, a person appointed as a

Notary cannot insist that his appointment as such should

be renewed. It has not been indicated that any of the

rights of the petitioner has been infringed by publication

of fresh advertisement for appointment of a Notary.

Therefore, there is no substance in the petition.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.04.2023 Sanjay