ORDER This writ petition has been filed to challenge the direction contained in the letter dated 6.2.1999 (Annexure-5) issued to the petitioner by the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Law (Justice), Government of Bihar. By the impugned letter the petitioner's registration as a Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 was cancelled with immediate effect. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that on a complaint received from the President of the Rajmahal Bar Association, the District Judge, Sahebganj made an enquiry and found that the complaints made against the petitioner were correct. He accordingly reported the matter to the Under Secretary in the Department of Law, Government of Bihar by his letter no.23, dated 20.1.1997 making a recommendation that the petitioner be relieved of his responsibility as a Notary with immediate effect. It is evident that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the aforesaid complaint and report made by the District Magistrate. Section 10 of the Notaries Act, 1952 dealing with the removal of names from the register provides that a person registered as a Notary may be removed if he was found, upon enquiry in the prescribed manner to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct as, in the opinion of the Government, renders him unfit to practice as notary. Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules framed under section 15 of the Act provides for an elaborate enquiry into the allegation of professional or other misconduct of a Notary. It is undeniable that no enquiry as provided under rule 13 of the rules was held before removing the petitioner as Notary. There is a feeble attempt in the counter affidavit to suggest that it was not a case of removal under section 10(d) of the Act but the petitioner was denied renewal of his registration on the basis of the complaints received against him. Leaving aside the question whether or not denial of renewal of registration on the basis of the allegation of professional misconduct would attract the provision of rule 13, the plea of denial of renewal plainly appears to be unfounded. In the first place in the impugned order itself it is stated that the State Government had taken the decision to cancel the petitioner's licence as Notary. Secondly, the petitioner's earlier registration came to an end on 22.2.1997. In the first place in the impugned order itself it is stated that the State Government had taken the decision to cancel the petitioner's licence as Notary. Secondly, the petitioner's earlier registration came to an end on 22.2.1997. A year before the expiry of his earlier registration he made an application accompanied with necessary fee on 7.10.1996. If it was a case of denial of renewal the petitioner's registration should have come to an end on 22.10.1997 itself and in case he was allowed renewal then renewal would last till 22.2.2000. The impugned order was issued midway on 6.2.1999 and it is thus clear that it would not be a case of denial of renewal but was clearly a case of removal of the petitioner's name from the register of Notaries. As. the impugned order wife issued without following the statutory procedure laid down under rule 13. The action of the Under Secretary is wholly unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. It will be, however, open to the appropriate Government to hold an enquiry into the complaints received against the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.