% BENCH © (^^£r^^ BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) No.'^t; PETITIONER : /2010 DurgeshBansal S/o.-^Shri Prakash Bansat, Aged about 19 years, R/o.- Ramnagar, Lingiyadih, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ....^ ^5^. ^c^\^ v ^y. 9%»>- ^ ^' . , ^1) State ofChhattisgarh . ^ Through the Secretary Scheduie Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Tribal Welfare. Department , D.K.S.'Bhawan, Mantral'aya Raipur(C.G.) 2) Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^, *^'<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.7159 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Durgesh Bansal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition UnderArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. • Present:- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the.State. ORDER (ORAL) ^ (Passed on this 7th day of December, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been issued a permanent caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner is not in a position to produce land records priorto 1950. 3. This Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others^ and other connected matters, held as under: "26 (i) The application should not be rejected on the ground that the documents relating to pre constitution period, are not available. If the application has been made by a candidate for verification of his social status certificate, the application cannot be rejected at the threshold for want of land record before the pre constitution period". 4. The petitioner may produce other relevant documents to establish the fact that the parents of the petitioner as well as the petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste community. 5. Thus, in the light of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoha (supra), the application of the petitioner shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period offourweeks. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the above, nothing remains in this petition for adjudication. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun 1 WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010