JUDGMENT : Dr.A.K.Rath, J. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenge is made to the letter dated 22.6.2016, Annexure-6, issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa, Law Department, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for renewal of certificate of practice/licence was rejected for non-fulfillment of the conditions enumerated under Rule 8-B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2014. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Advocate. He was appointed as the Notary Public of Berhampur by the Law Department, Government of Orissa on 16.7.1983 and, accordingly certificate of practice was issued to him. On 8.2.2016 he made an application for renewal of his certificate of practice before expiry of renewal period. By letter dated 14.3.2016, Annexure-3, opposite party no.2 requested him to furnish necessary documents that his certificate had been renewed for the period from 2011-2016. He furnished the required documents in support of his case. The further case of the petitioner is that he applied for renewal of his certificate for the period 2011-2016, which was received by the opposite parties. The original certificate of practice had been sent to the opposite parties. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2 sent a letter to the petitioner on 22.6.2016 rejecting his application for renewal of certificate of practice for non-fulfillment of the conditions enumerated under Rule 8-B of the Notaries Rules, 1956 as amended by the Notaries (Amending) Rules, 2014. Thereafter he made a representation to opposite party no.1 to withdraw the letter dated 22.6.2016. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It is stated that by letter dated 20.3.2010 the petitioner was requested to submit the original certificate of practice along with affidavit affirming that the petitioner had followed the Notarial Act and Rules. The petitioner did not choose to comply the same. Without complying the provision as enumerated under the relevant Rules, the petitioner was continuing with the Notarial practice. Letter dated 14.3.2016 was issued to him asking to furnish document that the certificate of practice had been renewed from 2011 to 2016. The application of the petitioner had been rejected for non-fulfillment of requirements of the Rule 8-B of the Notaries Rules, 1956. Letter dated 14.3.2016 was issued to him asking to furnish document that the certificate of practice had been renewed from 2011 to 2016. The application of the petitioner had been rejected for non-fulfillment of requirements of the Rule 8-B of the Notaries Rules, 1956. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as the Notary Public of Berhampur on 16.7.1983. The certificate of practice had been renewed up to 17.7.1995 and not thereafter. During his practice as Notary, a suo motu proceeding was initiated against him, which was subsequently quashed by this Court on the ground that inquiry was not conducted by the competent authority. The duplicate certificate available in the Department reveals that renewal had not been made after 17.7.1995. The petitioner did not produce his original certificate in spite of intimation to him by the Department. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner converting the allegations made in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner sent a letter to the opposite party no.1 on 27.3.2010 by registered post with A.D. stating therein that the original certificate of practice renewed with effect from 17.7.1992 had been acknowledged by the Law Government of Department on 7.6.1995. He had not received the letters dated 8.12.2006 and 25.2.2010 respectively. The opposites had no authority to direct the petitioner to submit an affidavit affirming that he has not done anything beyond the Notarial Act and Rules. In pursuance of provisions of Section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952) read with Rule 17 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, the State Government had published a list of Notaries appointed by it. The same was published in the Extraordinary Gazettee of the State of Orissa on 2.2.2013, vide Annexure 10. His name found place at serial no.249. Further, the Government of Orissa, Law Department issued letter to all the notaries including the petitioner with regard to the activities of Notary Public appointed by the Government of Orissa under the provisions of Notaries Act, 1952 and Notaries Rules, 1956, vide Annexure-11. 5. Heard Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.M.K.Rajguru, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.S.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties. 6. Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as the first Notary Public of Berhampur on 16.7.1983. 5. Heard Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.M.K.Rajguru, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.S.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties. 6. Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as the first Notary Public of Berhampur on 16.7.1983. His certificate of practice had been renewed from time to time. There is no blemish in his career. He made an application for renewal on 8.2.2016. The same was received by the Department. The original certificate had been submitted by the petitioner long since at the time of renewal of petition. The petitioner also intimated about the same to opposite party no.1. Without any reason or rhyme, his application for renewal was rejected. No reason has been assigned in the said letter. He further contended that the Government of Orissa had published a list of Notaries appointed by it in the extraordinary gazette notification dated 2.2.2013, vide Annexure-10. The name of the petitioner found place in the said list. Thus it is not open to the opposite parties to say that the certificate of practice had not been renewed. He further contended that the petitioner is otherwise is eligible for renewal of certificate. 7. Per contra, Mr.S.Mishra, learned A.S.C. submitted that the certificate granted to the petitioner had been renewed up to 17.7.1995. Thereafter the same had not been renewed. The petitioner had not furnished any document for renewal. In view of the same, his application was rejected for non-fulfillment of requirement under Rule 8-B of the Notaries Rules,1956. He further contended that letter was sent to the petitioner on 14.3.2016 asking him to furnish the details of record that certificate of practice had been renewed for the period from 2011-2016. The petitioner did not reply. He had not submitted the original at the time of renewal. 8. The certificate of practice issued to the petitioner on 16.7.1983, vide Annexure-1, shows that the same was renewed from time to time. The last renewal was made for a period of three years on 17.7.1992. But then the opposite parties in the counter affidavit admitted that the certificate was renewed up to 17.7.1995. Name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.249 in the extraordinary gazette of Government of Orissa on 2.2.2013. The last renewal was made for a period of three years on 17.7.1992. But then the opposite parties in the counter affidavit admitted that the certificate was renewed up to 17.7.1995. Name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.249 in the extraordinary gazette of Government of Orissa on 2.2.2013. The list was published pursuant to the provisions of Section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952) read with Rule 17 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. This Court fails to understand as to how the Government of Orissa published the name of the petitioner in the list of Notaries appointed by it in the extraordinary gazette. In view of the notification published by the Government of Orissa in the extraordinary gazette, it is no more open on the part of the Government to say that certificate of practice has not been renewed. The application of the petitioner was rejected on jejune grounds. 9. In view of the discussions made above, letter dated 22.6.2016, Annexure-6, issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa, Law Department is quashed. This Court directs the Principal Secretary to Government, Law Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.1 to consider the application for renewal of certificate of practice of the petitioner, if there is no other impediment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.