S^^i^S1^;1;^ i^g^S-;''?'?;'.';• fiESPONBENTS {>• <^^^^ •;/^^g" ^l; ^:i^~^c^^ c<y k-vzi I ^HBHlGM^©UK^^RGHMj°ia^SGARH^^^^ .WR^PET]^ ^S3'lN©iL^:^.^:OR^607^^ PETITtONER :. , Tekrarn Son of Shri Ram prasad, '' / ,ag^a about^earSfTeac Podi Dalha, Blbck AkalfaFa; District 'JanjgiR-Champa (C.G.). • ^^ ;...?';..-V(EgSUS::,:'...';s.:.^'.,',i..,,.^ i'^.: ft'Stat:e'Qf:j::hna is9ar&,T' - The' Seci^tgi^gEggaBMejTB^f'.Schopl - ,,^Eyucation,,.. D..l€^ ^C.G.>., .,••.:••.;-;.,,...^^ 2. Jati PramanpatFa LlchGhasfariya .:Ch:hanbeen Samiti, Ttirough' 'ths , •SeGretai^,. : KaryalaYa ;A^yl<^^ ^3af^'1iatl'ia^An,usu£hitJati,^/ikaS^Ran:d,it Kawf^Slzarikar iShukla^ VisKvifa'itrclyala ^^^risar^RaipurC.G.. ^ :J':',.^?.1^^ '.3.::';:;-:.The,C:ommi5siorier,' ..'^::::.;.<^":tiS^.^- ; Sctied u 1 e /TrjBe' a hd ^Schfidtfleg®!ste ^eyetQpment'' ^Sepw^W^^^^^^^^^ RavisBa%l<a^.^huklaxi\flshw@,^^^ ;;l:^Pai'isar,Ra:ipur-C.G..^4'.;:'''^. 4. ^ The^Assffiaht.GoimmisSioner , :;Tr(bN . Developrnent'. ^^ ••••Champa-C.G.':".:-: ',1:: • '{''^'':^'.:. /1'.:. ^ :' \88»i>IIITl[©ISIUNB@K% 1—INDIA.,::'::'':;-/: '::,' 1". •-•;<:. .•;.,::'. --" ^ •(&*,: ^a g^t**y!n-^,Sal.l swv ^^:';'''?''^??''^'!";'%?i''siB:SiBSiBsiKSBSS^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (S) No. 6349 of2007 PETITIONER : Tekram. . VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNniA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Dy. A.G. with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. and Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 06th day of September, 2010) 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2-High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner vide order dated 23.07.2007 (Annexure P/l) which was issued by the competent authority on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any docuiTienls showing him to be of "Binjhwar" caste, as per the Presidential Notification. . 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision ol' this Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters, wherein this Court after considering all the aspects of the matter and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteeii number of cases, in para 26 of the judgment and order has madu certain clarifications for verification ofthe caste certificate. 3. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of. The ComiTiitlee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision of this Courl rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connectud matters. -——- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010