KW i.sw'< ^ ,f' lff o <^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRFT PETITION (C) N0ccl^ /2006 PETITIONER ^^'>Naresh Kumar Dhruwanshi ,.•• ^f S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Dhruwanshi . (^'•^.•y ,„"•:'>" ^'^' t^t^^ ^''.^•••' r.^~:.-' Aged about 45 years Occupation-Service, Distrirt Prosecution Officer, Kawardha Dist. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh >»<»•" A" •-%. VLE^Sl^S RESPQNDENTS .0° ^»' »1 j^^^ i^ .<^s» ^^ [^^ ^l^y ^s ^r° ^^' 'd^" 1. Adim-Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, through Commisioner Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya Parisar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Anusuchit Janjati Praman Patra Uccha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti through Secretary, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya Parisar Raipur, Chhattisgarh [, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE v' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITJN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIQRARI_AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORJDJERS_ !•- vvv XI-HC—78 7SI "t|l'41d<l<, e>til<H'is, fsidiyy M.^...^'^^.... 3Tr^TT^R (1pf3^1) sn^v w R-(i<<i ^Sff ^rTT^T it^i^ l^- ^ ^Taiwatoaii^t (S.B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlh 19.08.2010 Common order has been passed in W.P.(S) No. 3338 of 2007 (Dinesh Kumar Bhagoriav. State of Chhattisgarh & Othersj including this petition. ^r'qiin^i TTFRff 'if ^Z^ <F<n'^.i< ^3T)TO3T1^5I 3»ri,J.) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3338 OF 2007 PETITIONER Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria Versus RESPONDENTS State of ChhattisgarhS. Others AFK. •2-6 C> \. And W.P. 4951/2005, W.P.(C) 65/2007, W.P.(C) 187/2007, W.P.(C) 6145/2007, W.P.(C) 2272/2008, W.P.(C) 2275/2008, W.P.(C) 3043/2009, W.P.(S) 2889/2007, W.P.(S) 3367/2007, W.P.(S) 3391/2007, W.P.(S) 3698/2007, W.P.(S) 4106/2007, W.P.(S) 4147/2007, W.P.(S) 7272/2007, W.P.(S) 2679/2008, W.P.(S) 3206/2008, W.P.(S) 4051/2008, W.P.(S) 4620/2008, W.P;(S) 4621/2008, W.P.(S) 5608/2008, W.P.(S) 1316/2009, W.P.(S) 1703/2009, W.P.(S) 2644/2009, W.P.(S) 3040/2009, W.P.(S) 3191/2009, W.P.(S) 436/2010, W.P.(C) 6135/2006 and W.P. 5517/2005. t»\ Post for pronouncement ofthe orders on the _/^ day ofAugust, 2010 Sd/- Satish K. Agnibotri Judge •^',^'^g'. • '^.."i^y "•if^^^^s- ^k\ \; HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3338 OF 2007 PETITIONER Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.4951 OF 2005 PETITIONER Chandra Shekhar Kotariwar RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C) N0.65 OF 2007 PET|T10N_ER Yashwant Bhal Chandra Somawar REiPONDENTS PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0.187 OF 2007 Rupram Baiga Versus Commissioner, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit JatiVikas & Another WRIT PETITIQN (ON0.6145 OF 2007 PETITIONER Chhattisgarh Chattri Samaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another RESPONDENTS tiS) -2-62- PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS WRIT PEtlTlQN (C) N0.2272 OF 2008 Sanjay Somawar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER WRIT_PET!T!ONIC) N0.2275 OF 2008 Srtit. Pratibha Somawar RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIQN (C) N0.3043 OF 2009 Rajesh Singh Arya Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITIQN (S) N0.2889 OF 2007 PETITIONER Ku. Rita Singh Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIQNER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3367 OF 2007 Sunil Kumar Sonkusare RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (SV N0.3391 OF 2007 Dinesh Kumar Sonkusare RE8PQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S)N0.3698 OF 2007 Shambhu Prasad Nishad RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ^€5 '<' PETITIQNER WRIT PETITIQN (S) N0.4106 OF 2007 Bhuwan Dekate RESPQNDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4147 OF 2007 Pravin Nimje Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.7272 OF 2007 Smt. Manju Tudu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & OtherS PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2679 OF 2008 Dashrath Dekate RESPONDENTS Versus State Govt. Qf Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3206 OF 2008 Anurag Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others ?2-6tf WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4051 OF 2008 PETITIONER AmritNand RESPQNDENTS Versus Stateof Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4620 OF 2008 PETITIQNER Kamal Kurnar Mahour BE6PONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4621 OF 2008 PETIT10NER NamitaGorakh RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5608 OF 2008 Surya Nath Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1316 OF 2009 Smt. Rajni Choudhary Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1703 OF 2009 PETITIONER Mahendra Kumar Uke RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another t,v= 2-6$' PETITLONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITIQN (S) N0.2644 OF 2009 Dr. Elveena Grace Toppo Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITJONER WRTT PETITION (S) N0.3040 OF 2009 Pradeep Kumar Arya RESPQNDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONER WRIT PETITIQN (S) N0.3191 OF 2009 Ram Kishore Mirja RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.436 OF 2010 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Mahor Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (0 N0.6135 OF 2006 PETmQNER Naresh Kumar Dhruwanshi RESPQNDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas & Another And WRIT PETITION N0.5617 OF 2005 Mrs. Rachna Naidu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others v— .^'" i\ ' 'k- ff^- \ 1 & 81»<T^| '^ '^^lf ^ "StrssS 2JS6 ^'•- (Writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Kishore Shrivastava & Shri K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocates with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Shri S. Tamrakar, Shri Akhilesh Dalpati, Shri Devendra Patel, Shri Harsh Wardhan, Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Shri Parag Kotecha, Shri P. Sam Koshy, Shri N.N. Roy, Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Shri L.C. Dash, Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Vihay Pandey, Shri Anup MajUmdar, Shri Jitendra Pali and Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocates forthe respective petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General with Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate appearing as amicus cunae. ORDER (Delivered on this j_3_^ay of August, 2010) 1. W.P.(S) 3338/2007, W.P. 4951/2005, W.P.(C) 65/2007, W.P.(C) 187/2007, W.P.(C) 6145/2007, W.P.(C) 2272/2008, W.P.(C) 2275/2008, W.P.(C) 3043/2009, W.P.(S) 2889/2007, W.P.(S) 3367/2007, W.P.(S) 3391/2007, W.P.(S) 3698/2007, W.P.(S) 4106/2007, W.P.(S) 4147/2007, W.P.(S) 7272/2007, W.P.(S) 2679/2008, W.P.(S) 3206/2008, W.P.(S) 4051/2008, W.P.(S) 4620/2008, W.P.(S) 4621/2008, W.P.(S) 5608/2008, W.P.(S) 1316/2009, W.P.(S) 1703/2009, W.P.(S) 2644/2009, W.P.(S) 3040/2009, W.P.(S) 3191/2009, W.P.(S) 436/2010, W.P.(C) 6135/2006 and W.P. No. 5517/2005, involve the same question of law and commoh facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. ,^!A '"• ^ ^^-^!, ? 9>-w"!fVS'£i 'w!Sy~'. •^^- -^^ <<l<f•sy -;St;~5s 2. The facts, in nutshell, involved in the individual petitions, are that: (i) W.P.(S)No. 3338 of 2007 The petitioner seeks a writ quashing theimpugned order dated 25-5-2007, whereby it has been found that the caste certificate of "Dhoba" Scheduled Tribe issued in favour of the petitioner, was wrong. Thus, the caste certificate was quashed and the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer against the reserved quota was cancelled. It was directed to take action in accordance with law for obtaining wrong caste certificate. The impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 19-06-2007. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing as lead counsel, would submit that the vigilance enquiry as required under the guidelines issued bythe Supreme Court in Kumah Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and Another^ have not been complied with in its letter and spirit, as there was novigilance cell in existence and the enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, who had sent an Inspector to go to the place of birth of grandfather of the petitioner and on the ' (1994)66cc241 2 (1995)46cc 32 •2-&& basis of certain alleged documents collected from the school, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to "Dhoba" Schedule Trrbe community, thus the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") was bad and illegal. (ii) W.P. (C) Nos. 65 of 2007, 2275 of 2008, 2272 of 2008 & W.P. No. 4951 of 2005. ]n these cases, no report of the vigilance cell was supplied to the petitioners to put forward their respective cases. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Committee are bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dedsion of the Supreme Court, rendered in Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & others . Clause 6 of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) further directs for a public notice by beat of drum for the purpose of opposing any claim made by the candidate which has not been complied with in any of the case. The Committee has further failed to consider all the documents in support of social status filed by the petitioners that also vitiafes the enquiry, as well as the impugned order. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sayanna v. State of (2008) 9 SCC 718 •\— F IC..A. ^tSiSlf" "8 s-fe^ t Maharashtra and Others and GM, Indian Bank v. R. Rani ancf Anothet^. In the event, it is found that the report of the Vigilance Cell was procured or fraudulently obtained the Director can take the further action in accordance with clause 6 of the direction issued by the Supreme Court. It is further submitted that all the documents of pre-constitution, have probative value ahd, as such, the same would be treated to be an authentic one that has not been done in the cases on hand. In W.P. (C) No. 4951 of 2005, the impugned order was passed on 29-05-2008. In this case, it appears that the authorities after having considered the documents submitted by the petitioners wlth regard to gotra, culture and tradition have not held the investigation as contemplated under dause 6 of the guideline issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) and came to the conclusion that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was not correctand accordingly, the appointment order was cancelled and further action was directed to be initiated against the petltioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was born in the year 1910 at Bilaspur and the petitioner was born at Nagpur in the year 1954. Before reorganization of the State, father of 4 (2009) 10SCC268 5 (2007)12 SGC 796 10 s^-b \ \r. the petitioner has been sifted to Bilaspur in the year 1950 itself. Learned counsel further submits that the report of the vigilance enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. With regard to the documents submitted by the petitioner, the Committee having not been satisfied with the documents, rejected the claim of the petitioner of being Scheduled Tribe Community. In these cases i.e. W.P. (C) Nos. 65. of 2007, 2275 of 2008,2272 of 2008 & W.P. No. 4951 of 2005, the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities were stayed by this Court on 19-01-2007, 22-04-2008, 22-04-2008 & 7-10-2005 respectively. (iii) W.P.rC)No.187of2007 The petitioner belongs to "Baiga" community as notified, it comes within the Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer in Irrigation Department on 31-10-1994. On a complaint of some other person, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa. Show cause noticewas issued to the petitioner without supplying a copy of the vigilance report, which accarding to the respondents was against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order passed thereon was illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 11-12-2006 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 01-03-2007. 11 -z.^ (iv) W.P. (S) Nos. 33&7 & 3391 of 2007 Challenge in these petitions • is to the orders dated 26-02-2007 and 26-03-2007, respectively. The petitioners claim that they belong to "Halba" community. The petitioners are residents of Balaghat. The Committee cancelled the caste certiificate of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce the documents to establish the fact that they belong to "Halba" community. They, in fact, belong to "Koshti" community. The vigilance enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat; There is no mention of any notice or supply of report of the vigilance enquiry to the petitioner as required under the direction/guideline issued by the Supreme Court: in Ku. Madhurf Patil (supra). The caste certificates were issued to the petitioners by the Naib Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon on 27-07-1995 & 31-05-1995 respectively. This Court by orders dated 11-12-2007 and 26-11-2007, s?a(us quo with regard to service of the petitioners was granted. (v) W.P.fONo. 6136 of 2006 In this case, the caste certificate dated 03-03-1994 issued by the Tahsildar, Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur holding the petitioner as "Gond" Scheduled Tribe, was under verification before the Committee. The enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, 12 1^2— •V Balrampur, Surguja. Thereafter, it was got done by the vigilance Inspector ofthe Committee. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigilance report was not supplied along with the show cause notice though opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce documents. Thus, there was no compliance of the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuh Patil (supra). The petitioner is working as District Prosecution Officer, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham. This Court by ordei- dated 03-01-2007 granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. (vi) W.P.No.5517of2005 In this case, the caste certificate dated 14-05-1990 issued by the Tahsildar, Raigarh holding the petitioner as "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe, was under verification before the Committee. The enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigilance report was not supplied along with the show cause notice though opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce documents. Thus, there was no compliance of the directions/guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). The petitioner is working as Lecturer. This Court by order dated 21-11-2005 granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. 1 %&ya I l"^-1'" ^i ^ •»i~3!'*'.rfi? "%.. '"^^ 13 Z-^3 ,(, ,y (vii) W.P. (S) No. 3698 of2Q07 In this case, the caste certificate dated 05-02-1991 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Surajpur, District-Surguj'a holding the petitioner as "Manjhi" Scheduled Tribe, was under verification before the Committee. The enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Surguja. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigilance report was not supplied along with the show cause notice though opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to produce documents. Thus, there was no compliance of the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). The petitioner is working as Lecturer. This Court by order dated 27-06-2007 granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. (vlii) W.P.(C)No.6145of2Q07 This p'etition filed by Chhattisgarh Chattri Samaj seeking quashing of orders dated 29-08-2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Committee in respect of Chandrashekhar Kotriwar and the order dated 04-12-2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Committee in respect of Yashwant B. Somawar. Further, declaration that the Committee has wrongly held that 'Chattri' a sub-caste of 'Kawar'. No order can be passed in this petition on two counts i.e. firstly; the impugned orders are passed in respect of individuals on '^K': 14 •2-^ ^ verification of the caste certificates. Thus, the individuals alone are competent to question the same, not an association and secondly; the individuals have already filed separate petitions impugning the orders passed by the Committee against them. (ix) W.P. (S) No. 4621 of 2008 Grievance of the petitioner, in this petition, is that the Committee declined to verify the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that no document priorto 10-08-1950 was made available. Having regard to the above-stated facts, no application can be declined on the basis of non-availabillty of certain documents before 1950, as it has been held by the Supreme Court that the documents alone cannot be treated as material to verify facts. There are certain other aspects, which are required to beseen and examined. In view of foregoing, if an application is made by the petitioner for verification of his social status before the Committee, the Committee cannot decline to enteri:ain the application on the above-stated reasons. (x) W.P. (S) 4620 of 2008 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07-08-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics whereby the petitioner has been asked to produce the caste ceri:ificate duly verified by the Committee onwhich the petitioner is relying. 15 o-T-s" V;. (XI) It has been made clear in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) that the candidate should make an application for verification of the caste certificate before the Committee. Thus, the order directing verification of the caste cert:ificate cannot be quashed, at this stage. It is informed by the respondent/State that the application dated 04-08-2008 submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Committee and by order dated 22-09-2008 (Annexure R/2) it was found that the petitioner does not belong to 'Koli' community. The subsequent order dated 22-09-2008 is not under challenge in this petition. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of fpregoing, the prayer of the petitioner to consider his application for verification and declare him that the petitioner belongs to 'Koli' community i.e. Scheduled Tribe cannot be issued in this petition. Particularly, when the Committee considered and passed the order on merits and the same is not impugned in this pefition. W.P.(S)No. 3206 of 2008 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26-05-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Committee wherein caste certiflcate dated 28-06-1989 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur holding the petitioner as 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe community was under consideration. The Committee held that the petitioner did 16 T-^ not belong to 'Gond' community, as he was "Telenga" from State of Andhra Pradesh. The investigation was done by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur holding that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, as is evident from Annexure P/9. Thus, under Clause 6 of the direction/guideline issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), no further action was necessary. Show cause notice for supply of other material by the petitioner was not required and, as such, the order passed by the Committee was bad in law and deserves to be quashed. (xii) W.P.(S)No.3191 of2009 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. the Committee to recognize/verify the caste certificate of the petitioner. There is no challenge to any order passed by the Committee. It appears that there is no final order passed by the Committee. Aecordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is made clear that if the application is filed by the petitioner for verification of the caste cert:ificate, the same may be considered and decided by the Committee, in accordance with the law and in view of the directions issued by this Court in other connected matters. 17 2-I:F t (xiii) W.P. (S) No. 1703 of 2009 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. the Committee to recognize/verify the caste certificate of the petitioner. According to the petitioner on 13-02-2009 he appeared before the Committee and requested the Committee to verify his caste certificate, but the said prayer has been refused on the ground that the petitioner ought to have produced the land records of the year 1950. There is no challenge to any order passed by the Committee. It appears that there is no final order passed by the Committee. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, it is made clear that if the application is filed by the petitioner for veriflcation of the caste certificate, the same may be considered and decided by the Committee, in accordance with the law and in vlew of the directions issued by this Court in other connected matters. (Xiv) W.P. (3)72720f 2007 The petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 23-07-2007 (Annexure P/15) whereby and whereunder the caste certificate dated 06-04-1989 issued by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road, holding the petitioner as 'Uraon' Scheduled Tribe was under verification. The investigation was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. I %esy% g ^ '^'^^ ^ ^ '^ ••^,-^' £! 'vit^y 18 T-7 A ^ Without examination of the vigilance report and affording an opportunity of hearing by supplying a copy of vigilance report, it was held that this was the responsibility of the petitioner to prove the caste certificate dated 06-04-1989 and, as such, by the impugned order, the Committee cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner with a direction to take consequential action against the petitioner. (xv) W.P. (S) No.3040 & W.P.(C) 3043 of 2009 By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 25-05-2009 (Annexure P/9 & P/7, respectively), whereby the caste certificates ofthe petitioners have been cancelled. According to the petitioners, they belong to 'Jatav' Scheduled Caste community. The Committee without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit passed the impugned order in an illegal and arbitrary order. Thus, the same may be quashed. (xvi) W.P. (S) No.2889 of 2007 By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24-05-2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Committee. On perusal of the record, it appears that against the order dated 24-05-2005, the petitioner preferred a petition being W.P. No.3200/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of «&. 19 2--F-9 \ •^. by this Court by order dated 03-08-2005 (Annexure P/16) setting aside the order dated 24-05-2005 and remanded back the matter to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate prder. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Committee after having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the order dated 06-11-2006 (Annexure P/20) and cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner has not sought any relief against the subsequent order dated 06-11-2006 in the relief clause of the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 6-11-2006, if so advised. (xvii) W.P. (S) Nos. 4106 & 4147 of 2007 The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that the they belong to 'Halbi' community, Scheduled Tribe, the Committee withput appreciating the documents submitted by the petitloners cancelled their caste certificate issued by the competent authority even no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded and no documents have been supplied inspite of sincere and frantic efforts made by the petitioners for getting the relevant documents to put forward their respective cases. The impugned orders have been passed in a casual manner without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners. B s^^'^^^- f s ^J^ 20 ^- (xviii) W.P. (S) No. 2679 of 2008 Challenge in this petltion is to the order dated 07-04-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Committee whereby and whereunder the caste eertificate dated 22-09-1977 issued by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Collector, Durg, treating the petitioner member of 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe community has been cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Committee without considering the replysubmitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice and without affording proper opportunityof hearing and without providing the enquiry repori:, rejected the caste certificate the petitioner in a casual and mechanical manner. Thus, the same deserves to be quashed. fxix) W.P. (S) No. 4051 of2008 By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 27-08-2007 (Annexure P/6) by whlch the caste certificate dated 22-07-1987 issued by the District Coordinator, Department of Tribal Welfare treating the petitioner as a member belongs to 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe community, has been rejected. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order is passed against the provisions of Artiele 14 of the Constitution of India and against the well settled law laid down by the Supreme »1 -•;-%-. 8 »^is'cyi. % '"•SSSs^'''' ^ ^ -W^ J 21 ^i- ^ Court in umpteen