Chatur Singh Choudhary vs State Of Raj. & Ors

Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Mr. Manish Patel,Mr. Narendra Singh,Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Mr. Rajesh Parihar ,Mr. Ramesh Purohit,Mr. Sunil Mehta, Mr.B.L.Choudhary, Mr.G.S.Rathore, Mr.Sandeep Saruparia,Smt. Raghuraj,Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, Mr. M.S.Panwar for Mr.K.L.Thakur, Mr.I.R.Choudhary, Mr.R.S.Gill,Mr.Rakesh Arora,Mr. S.K.Punia, Mr. Ravindra Acharya, Mr. Rajat Dave,Mr. J.K.Chanda, Mr. S.N.Tiwari,Mr. Anil Bhandari, Mr. C.S.Kotwani , Mr. Manish Pitaliya ,Mr. Sandeep Shah, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Mr. L.D.Khatri, Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Mr. Dron Kaushik, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. R.L.Jangid, Additional Advocate General alongwith Mr. Nimesh Suthar, for the State.

BY THE COURT :-

Reportable

1. These writ petitions involve a common question of law as 5

regards to petitioners' legal right for renewal of the certificate of

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 of 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 a 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 6

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 7

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 appointment of

notary and not for renewal of the certificates of authorisation

already issued. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

that even if the power vested in the State Government in the

matter of renewal of the certificate of authorisation as per sub-

section (2) of Section 5 as substituted by Act 36 of 99 w.e.f.

17.12.99 is taken to be discretionary, the discretion vested has 8

to be exercised judicially and for the said purpose, the

circumstances enumerated u/s 10 of the Act for removal of

names of the practising notaries from Register maintained by

the State Government u/s 4 can be read as guidelines. Learned

counsel submitted that admittedly, the renewal has been refused

by the State Government without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned

being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. In this

regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Raj Restaurant &

Another vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1982 SC, 1550.

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that as a matter of

fact, the controversy involved in these petitions stands settled by

a Jaipur Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.09

rendered in the matter of Smt. Asha Bhansali vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.15119/09) and other

connected writ petitions.

6. The other counsels appearing for the respective petitioners

in other writ petitions have adopted the arguments advanced by

learned counsel Mr. M.S.Singhvi.

7. On the other hand, Mr. R.L.Jangid, learned Additional

Advocate General submitted that vide notification dated 24.2.09

issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power 9

conferred by Section 15 of the Act, some material amendments

have been made in the Rules which have come into force w.e.f.

1.3.09 and thereby a complete new procedure has been laid

down for the appointment of the notaries therefore, the State

Government has taken a policy decision that all appointments as

a Notary shall be made in accordance with the amended

provision of Rules so as to extend equal opportunity to all the

advocates in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of

India and therefore, the certificates of authorisation of the

existing notaries have not been renewed. It is submitted by the

learned Additional Advocate General that while providing a new

procedure for appointment of the notaries by amending Rule 6

and 7 and inserting a new Rule 7A, a transitional provision in

terms of Rule 7B has also been incorporated which provides that

all memorials received by the competent authority, which are

pending shall be processed/examined in accordance with the

provisions of the Rules as amended by the Notaries

(Amendment) Rules, 2009, therefore, the policy decision taken

by the State Government cannot be faulted with. It is submitted

that the appointment as a notary did not confer any accrued or

vested right on the petitioners and therefore, the State

Government is not precluded from taking a decision not to renew

the certificate of authorisation issued. In support of the

contention, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied 10

upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh

vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC, 702.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently

contended that the petitioners are not entitled to claim renewal

of certificates as a matter of right . It is submitted that before

the amendment introduced w.e.f. 17.12.99 , the renewal of the

certificate of authorisation on submission of the application and

payment of prescribed fee was as a matter of right but after

substitution of the word "shall" by the word "may" by way of

amendment of sub-section(2) of Section 5 of the Act, makes the

provision directory and discretionary and therefore, the State

Government is well within its right to refuse the renewal.

9. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted

that no person is entitled to practice as a Notary unless he

possesses a valid certificate issued by the State

Government/Central Government authorising him to practice as

such. It is submitted that the petitioners were authorised to

practice as a Notary for a period of five years and their

certificate of authorisation having already expired , they cannot

be permitted to practice as a Notary in violation of the provisions

of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted by the learned

Additional Advocate General that the petitioners in some of the

writ petitions did not submit their applications for renewal before

the expiry of the period of certificate of authorisation therefore, 11

in terms of provisions of Rule 8-B of the Rules, their claim for

renewal was liable to be rejected on this count alone.

10. Learned Additional Advocate General urged that Section

10 of the Act deals with the removal of the notaries appointed

from the Register maintained u/s 4 of the Act on the existence of

circumstances enumerated in no manner regulates the grant or

refusal of the renewal. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, in

terms of clause (f) of Section 10 non renewal of the certificate of

practice is a ground for removal of the name of the appointed

notaries from the Register,therefore, it is misconceived to

contend that Section 10 provides guidelines for consideration of

the matter of renewal of the certificate of authorisation.

11. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Additional Advocate

General that the Act or the Rules does not envisage any

opportunity of hearing to the applicants before refusal of the

renewal and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any

opportunity of hearing and therefore, the decision taken by the

State Government exercising discretion vested in it cannot be

said to be illegal , arbitrary and without jurisdiction warranting

interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

13. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions of the 12

parties, it will be beneficial to have a glance at the scheme of the

Act and the Rules.

14. By virtue of provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, the Government of India had the power

to appoint notary public only for the limited purpose of

performing function under that Act and therefore, so as to

empower the Central and State Governments to appoint notaries

generally for all recognised notarial purposes and to regulate the

profession of notaries , the Act was enacted which has come into

force w.e.f. 14.2.56.

15. Section 3 of the Act deals with power to appoint notaries .

The Central Government is empowered to appoint as notaries

any legal practitioners or the persons who possesses such

qualification as may be prescribed for whole or any part of India

whereas, the State Government has such powers for whole or

any part of the State. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4, the

names of the persons appointed as notaries and the necessary

particulars about them as specified under sub-section (2) of

Section 4 are required to be entered in a Register of notaries to

be maintained by the Central Government and the State

Government in such form as may be prescribed. Sub-section (1)

of Section 5 provides that every notary who intends to practise

as such may on payment to the Government appointing him of

the prescribed fee , if any, be entitled to have his name entered 13

in the register maintained by the Government under Section 4.

The person appointed as a notary becomes entitled to a

certificate authorising him to practise for a period of five years

from the date on which the certificate is issued to him.

16. The renewal of the certificate issued is dealt with by sub-

section (2) of Section 5. As per sub-section (2) of Section 5 as

originally framed, the State Government was under an obligation

to renew the certificate of practise of any notary for a period of

five years on receipt of the application in the prescribed fee. But

after the amendment introduced by Act 36 of 1999 w.e.f.

17.12.99 , the word "shall" employed in sub-section (2) of

Section 5 stands substituted by the word "may" and therefore,

now a discretion is vested in the State Government to refuse the

renewal, obviously for the valid reasons.

17. Section 6 of the Act provides that the Central Government

or every State Government shall during the month of January of

each year, publish in official gazette a list of notaries appointed

by the Government in practise at the beginning of that year with

such detail pertaining to them as may be prescribed. Section 8

defines function of the notaries and Section 9 put a bar on any

person to practise as a notary unless he holds a certificate of

practice in force issued to him u/s 5. Section 10 delineates the

circumstances under which the Government appointing any

notary may by order remove his name from the register 14

maintained by it in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Section 15

empowers the Central Government to frame Rules to carry out

purposes of the Act by notification in the official gazette.

18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the

Act, the Central Government has framed the Rules which have

come into force w.e.f. 15.2.56. The Rules framed regulates the

qualification for appointment as notary , number of notaries to

be appointed in each State or union territory by the appropriate

Government, the procedure for such appointments , certificate

of authorisation, fee for issue and renewal of certificate of

practice , inquiry into allegations of professional or other

misconduct of a notary, submission of returns, annual publication

of list of notaries etc.

19. It will be beneficial to notice the provisions contained in the

Rules relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in

these petitions. Rule 3 of the Rules lays down qualification for

appointment as notary . As per Rule 4 a person holding the

qualification for appointment as notary is entitled to make an

application for appointment as such in the Form of Memorial

addressed to such officer or authority of the appropriate

Government as the Government may by publication of the

notification in the official gazette designate in this behalf. Rule 6

which deals with preliminary action on application , provides that

if the competent authority after examining the application 15

received by him is satisfied that the application is not complete

in all respect or the applicant does not possess the qualification

specified in Rule 3 or that any previous application of the

applicant for appointment was rejected within six months before

the date of application, shall reject it summarily and inform the

applicant accordingly. If the application is not rejected

summarily, the competent authority may requisition the

information/objection if any, regarding the appointment of

applicant as a notary from Bar Council, Bar Association

incorporated Law Society or other Authority in the area where

the applicant proposes to practice. Rule 7 provides that the

competent authority shall make the recommendations after

holding such inquiry as he thinks fit having regard to the matters

namely, whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in

which he proposes to practice as notary , the commercial

importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to

practise and number of existing notaries practicing in area and

whether it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the

area and further the knowledge and experience of the applicant

of commercial law , the nature of objection if any raised in

respect of his appointment as notary, regarding the comparative

suitability of the applicant where application from other

applicants in respect of the area are pending etc. The applicant is

entitled to an opportunity of hearing to make his representation 16

against the objections, if any. Thereafter, as per Rule 7A

inserted vide notification dated 24.2.09 which has come into

force from 1.3.09, if the appropriate government allows , the

applicant shall be asked to appear before the Interview Board to

be constituted by the appropriate Government from amongst its

officers dealing with the legal matters, to judge the competency

of the applicant for being appointed as notary. A transitional

provision in terms of Rule 7B has been incorporated to deal with

the applications pending upto 28.2.09 which provides that the

same shall be processed/examined in accordance with the

provisions of the Rules as amended by Notaries (Amendment)

Rules, 2009. Rule 8 provides that on the receipt of the

recommendations of the Interview Board , the appropriate

Government may allow the application in respect of the whole of

the area to which it relates or in respect of any part of area to

which it relates and may also reject the application. As per sub-

rule (2) of Rule 8, the applicants are required to be informed of

every order passed by the appropriate Government under sub-

Rule(1) and further as per sub-rule(3), the applicant whose

application has been rejected or allowed in respect of only part

of the area or against whom an order as to cost has been made

may within 60 days of the date of the order apply to the

Government for reviewing the order and thereupon the

Government shall pass such order as considered it necessary 17

after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit. Sub-rule (4) of

Rule 4 puts a ceiling on number of notaries to be appointed by

the appropriate Government in State or Union Territory as

specified in the Schedule. The said provision inserted w.e.f.

10.5.01 further provides that the notaries whose certificates

have been renewed under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be

included for the purpose of counting in the total number of

notaries specified in the Schedule. As per Rule 8A inserted vide

notification dated 8.7.97 provides for extension of the area of

practice on the application being made by a notary public who is

already in possession of the certificate of practice.

20. Rule 8 B which has been inserted vide notification dated

31.10.07 with immediate effect provides that a certificate of

practice issued under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 may be renewed for

a further period of five years on payment of prescribed fee. The

application for renewal is required to be made to the appropriate

Government before three months from the date of expiry of its

period of validity. However, as per proviso thereto, after

considering the reasons stated in the applications, the

appropriate Government may relax the condition of submission

of application for renewal for practice before the above specific

period. Rule 9 prescribes for issue and renewal of certificate of

practice and Rule 13 provides the procedure to be followed in

respect of the inquiry into the allegations of professional or other 18

misconduct of a notary.

21. Thus, the scheme of the Act and the Rules as noticed

above makes it abundantly clear that the qualification,

disqualification , the procedure for appointment , issuance of the

certificate authorising to practise as a notary , renewal of the

certificate, removal of the person appointed as a notary are

governed by the specific provisions incorporated and the State

Government repository of the limited power has to exercise it

strictly within the framework of the Rules framed by the Central

Government in this regard in exercise of the power conferred by

Section 15 of the Act. Suffice it to say that in the garb of the

policy decision or by an executive fiat , the State Government

cannot enlarge the ambit and scope of its power, by adding the

functions which are not contemplated under the Act or the Rules.

22. Adverting to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the

petitioners were appointed as notary after following the

procedure laid down on being found fit for such appointment . It

is also not in dispute that the certificates of authorisation of

some of the petitioners have been renewed from time to time in

the preceding years. It is also the common ground between the

parties that the applications preferred by the petitioners

remained pending consideration of the State Government in

some of the cases for years together.

23. Admittedly, the applications for renewal of certificates for 19

authorisation filed by the petitioners have been rejected by

passing identical orders giving a common reason in terms 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 should stop working as a notary forthwith under

the said certificate of authorisation.

24. It is to be noticed that as per sub-section (2) of Section 5

as it was existing before the amendment introduced by Act 36 of

1999 w.e.f. 17.12.99 substituting the word "shall" employed

therein by word "may" , the entitlement of a person appointed as

a notary public once registered as such was automatic on

making an application and payment of fee. It is true that after

the amendment introduced as aforesaid, a discretion is vested

with the State Government to grant the renewal or refuse it. But

then, such discretion vested is not absolute and the same has to

be exercised judicially . In considered opinion of this court,

having regard to the scheme of the Act, even after the

amendment introduced as aforesaid, the grant of renewal of

the license for authorisation is a rule and the rejection an

exception. Therefore, ordinarily, if there is nothing adverse

against the person seeking renewal of the certificate of

authorisation to practice as notary then the same would not be

refused.

20

25. It is pertinent to note that under the scheme of the Act and

the Rules , the procedure for minute scrutiny of the application

and to judge the suitability of a person to be appointed as a

notary has been prescribed at the time of initial appointment.

The Rules do not provide for any detailed procedure to be

adopted while considering an application for renewal of the

license, obviously for the reason that the suitability of the person

is judge at the point of entry and further the specific provision

has been incorporated for removal of the person appointed as

notary on existence of any of the circumstances delineated under

Section 10 of the Act. Of course, it cannot be said that a renewal

can be refused only on the existence of any of the circumstances

enumerated in Section 10 inasmuch as, there may be many

more circumstances such as incapacity of the person appointed

to discharge his duties as notaries, the irregularities or illegalities

committed by him in maintaining the record as provided for

under Rule 11 of the Rules etc. necessitating refusal of the

renewal.

26. It is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General

that by virtue of Rule 7B of the Rules all pending applications

including the application for renewal has to be dealt with

according to the amended provisions and therefore, the policy

decision taken by the Government to reject all the applications

for renewal cannot be faulted with. It is to be noticed that by 21

way of amendment a procedure different than existing procedure

has been introduced for the purpose of initial appointment as a

notary. By way of amended Rules, neither any change is brought

in the procedure to be followed for consideration of the

application for renewal nor the right to renewal of the certificate

of authorisation of the notaries already appointed is restricted in

any manner. It is settled law that the State Government

repository of the power circumscribed by statutory provision

cannot take any policy decision or issue an executive fiat which

is beyond the ambit, scope and spirit of the relevant Statute. In

this regard, it will be apposite to refer to a decision of Kerala

High Court in the matter of A.Gauri Shanker vs. State , AIR 1991

Kerala, 225, wherein while examining the validity of a policy

decision taken by the State Government with regard to renewal

of the certificate for practicing as notary, restricting the

maximum period of practice to six years i.e. two terms of three

years each , the court observed:

"13. The State Government is a functionary of limited power under the scheme of the Act. The exercise of its powers is conditioned by the statutory provision. It is not a free agent either in relation to the appointment or as regards the termination of notaries' status. It has to function within the frame-work of the rules framed by the Central Government. Policy consideration are already taken care of when Parliament passed the law. Even subsidiary details got covered by the rules. The State Government cannot therefore inject into the system something which according to its notion, is a better nutrient.

...............xxxx..............

22 16. The present is a case where a direct and daring aggression has been directed against the core scheme of the Notaries Act. That cannot be permitted having regard to the limited leverage and State Government enjoys under the statutory scheme. Imposing a restrictive period for practising as a notary- a six year period is unduly restrictive- is on the face of it arbitrary and uncalled for. Experience in relation to the functioning of notaries will shows that there have been reputed legal firms which have, from generation to generation carried on with great credit and honour the onerous and responsible duties to be discharged by a notary public. It will be manifestly against public interest if one who has an accumulated experience of a sizeable six years is scuttled merely for giving another a new 'job opportunity'. An advanced age is only an added advantage for performing the duties of an ancient legal institution. "Age, "Samuel Johnson said," will perform the promises of youth."

27. Thus, for the parity of reasons, in considered opinion of

this court, in the garb of the Act and Rules as amended, the

alleged policy decision taken by the State Government beyond

the ambit and scope of statutory provisions governing the field is

ex facie, illegal and unconstitutional . In this view of the matter,

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Kuldeep Singh's case (supra) also does not help the respondents

in any manner whatsoever.

28. Coming to the contention of the learned Additional

Advocate General that the applications preferred by many

applicants are liable to be rejected inasmuch as the same have

not been filed before the expiry of period of three months as

envisaged by Rule 8-B of the Rules, it is pertinent to note that

Rule 8-B in its present form has been incorporated by way of 23

amendment w.e.f. 31.10.07 and therefore, the said provision

cannot be made applicable to the applications which were

already pending consideration. Further, by virtue of proviso to

Rule 8-B, the appropriate Government is empowered to relax the

condition of submitting the application before three months from

the date of expiry of period of validity of the certificate of

authorisation. Therefore, if the application for renewal has been

preferred by any of the petitioners belatedly for bona fide

reasons then, the matter regarding condonation of delay in filing

the application needs to be considered by the State Government

sympathetically. As a matter of fact, the respondents are even

not entitled to raise this question inasmuch as, it is settled law

that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on

certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so

mentioned and cannot be permitted to be supplemented by fresh

reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. (vide Mohinder

Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi

& Ors.,AIR 1978 SC, 851). Indisputably, the application seeking

renewal preferred by none of the petitioners has been rejected

on the ground that the renewal was not sought for before the

expiry of the period of certificate of authorisation therefore, the

respondents cannot be permitted to justify the rejection of

renewal on such ground.

29. The last contention of the learned Additional Advocate 24

General that since the Act and the Rules does not envisage any

opportunity of hearing before rejecting their applications for

renewal therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any

opportunity of hearing, to say the least, is absolutely devoid of

any merit. It is to be noticed that Rule 7 of the Rules provides for

an opportunity of making representation to the applicant if any

objections are raised against his appointment and further where

the application for appointment as a notary is rejected , the

applicant has right to make an application for review of the order

in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules.

It is strange to suggest that a person shall be entitled for

opportunity of hearing if his application for appointment is

rejected but he shall not be entitled for an opportunity of hearing

if the application for renewal is rejected. As noticed above,

unless, there exists a valid reason for rejection, the renewal has

to be granted as a matter of course and therefore, it is all the

more necessary to extend an opportunity of hearing if the

application for renewal of certificate of authorisation is proposed

to be rejected. Needless to say that before taking any action

having evil and civil consequences, the statutory authority is

under an obligation to give an opportunity of hearing to the

person affected. Thus, the order impugned passed by the

respondents rejecting the applications of the petitioners for

renewal of their certificate of authorisation without giving an 25

opportunity of hearing to them is violative of elementary

principles of natural justice and therefore, deserves to be

quashed for this reason also.

30. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are

hereby allowed. The impugned decision of the State Government

rejecting the applications of the petitioners for renewal of their

certificates of authorisation to practice as a Notary and directing

them to stop working as Notary are quashed and set aside. The

State Government is directed to consider and decide the

applications for renewal preferred by the petitioners on merits

afresh, keeping in view the position of law discussed above,

within a period of three months from the date of this order. It is

made clear that if the State Government proposes to reject the

applications of any of the applicants for renewal of their

certificates of authorisation then, no such order shall be passed

by the State Government without giving an opportunity of

hearing to such applicants. No order as to costs.

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

Aditya/-