?i.£:: :i-E' 1N^H:KI^N'81.aiMj@ <g<S; ffi( ^lalii l^^ BII-^RLFFi W.P.fCl.NG. '^f:^'2 f PETlTlQNER RESPONDENTS :w .- ^/^^ .^%®?/ .^^y:? ^%i^-:'^ ^ ^it Kumar^Bada,:^agiedi,..abC)ut,.35 .,.:'•,•,,.;yea[iS;^SyG^tifhJlal<ari^s?Ba8a,:;l^isl^ i;l':^:'<,U;ia®Rp^oCTil|a§iiJIVIu|H:R^ BaiKunthpur,Tah^l E^iKur |^r,^ : Kdna.(C.©.y'';.S:.,.:.-.:^:-^,-"l^::^..^ ;;:'F:MBRS!^^r:::£^^^lt:i:^SK£^^fl% ':4^^'St^'.%^h'tT^S§ejW ''ThrougM^ ,':r^:;SeGrgtSry,;;f3iSgHeGliHl^SS(|as^ii>and? ..^^.•SetT^yl^l^Q'nE^algMvelt^ ^;::';:[^partm®Ft^^l3.K.,S.i®l'lei<i»any:.'RSi[:>Ht'| ,(C.G.:}..,':v':.,?^r.iS'^%i|:^%^^^^^^^ 2. Syb-Diyisiorial^ Qffic^^sB^kurr^ ; TOhSil. ^BSikuftthpyr,^^^^ %Kpp.©.);s;i||^'^^::'s;^^^^^^^^ •3.:,:;'<.Thg^'TalT8Hd^,^BaikuntM^unys,E^ ••.:',,^KOTea;:(<2^.%i%%^:'^%^^^ @ WRlTPETITIO UNDERARTIjGLE2^(:»F^HEG©NgT("TUSl"Ba«i OFINDI.A. 1 BARTIEUl-ARS <3R CTBfEII^iQ^ER :- AsstatedabOveiricausetitle^ HIGHeOURTOF GHHATTIS@AIW; OUWUR Sinale Benclt; Hon'ftte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrftf^tawi. J. BETITIGWgB RESPQNDENTS WRrrPETITION (Cl N0.829/2811 AjitKumarBada Versus State of Ghtatfjsgarh anel others Presenfc - Shri Rahuf Mishra, counssl for the priitioner. ShriAjayE)wivedt,E "WWf^MWKN^I IWKlJIUUMfllK^EIffl'* (Passedon27u'QrApril.20115 Thls petiBon has been fileid by the peUtiorw aMTieved by oreler datod 19^/09 pas^dby respondent No.2,bywhieh pedtioner's applieaUon fer issuance of permanentcaste ceitfficate has been r^ected. ".-F" 2. The case of the peUtioner is that the peBUoner had eariier applied for issuance of caste cerUfkate, as according to his application, he betongs to ttie scheduled tribeofUraon,as perthe noUfleatlonof the Govemment mentKmedat seriaf rw.33 of the tist of scheduted tribes. IniUally, a temporaiy eiKrtB certifkarte was issued on 22/5/08 (Annexure PQ). Thereafter, though the petitjoner applied for IssuanGS^f permanent caste certificate, the fliatter Temained pendtng. The peUtioner then fited a writ psWion - W.P.fB) No.492€)iW befora thte ©ouit, aggrieved by inaGUon of th®rwponctont, tn not consldering tite appltcaton, In thatwritpetitton,onl/09W)9, theState counseiwasgi'anted^metovArUyasto why peBBoner's application has not been consktered. ThecMfl»r, e petiBonw came to know thatvfde impi^|nedord8rdated19Ai6/09,peBBonei'sappli(atio(i has already beenrejected. : . •.•,.^1^.-'^.:. t^"- 2 •3^ 3. Lsamed counsel for the peUtiener stfbmWed that St® petitionei's applicaUon for issuance of permanent caste certiflcate has t»en re|seted by relying upon the report of Tahsildar, Baikunthpur. In (hat report, ft has been stated that as the petitfoner has ^ailed to produce any decument prtoifeto G19nse0, he is riot entitled tor issuance of caste certlflcatB. The Sub-DMtionat OfRcer also rejected ftwapplication ontheground thatas ttie petitioner hasfailed to produce any docunrentary evidence regarding residence of his torefathwson or before 6^/1950, the application is liable to be rejected. 4. Retying upon the order dated 2719fQ7 passed by the Dhflsion Beneh <rf this Court in the case of Narendra Dehariya v. StateofGhhaUisgarhandottiers, W.P.(C) No.5070/07 and bateh of peUUons and order dated ia08/10 passsd in the case of Ramsajman v. State of GhhatUsgarh and ere., W.P.(S) No.6616/08, it has been submitted that the Sub-DMsionat Offlcer and the Tahsildar, both committod ittegality in insisting upon productton ef records plter to 1950 and tte enquiry ought to be made bi |ust and proper manner to flnd out ttie factum of residence <rf petiSoner's fbrsfathers. 5. A perusal of impugned order dated 19/06/(»shows that Ute Tahsildar has given advers®report that the petitioner faited to produce the land recorcte prior to 6©/1950.That raport has been aceepted by the Sub-Divteional Officer recording that the petitfoner failed to preduce any documentary evidence regardlng rasktence of hls foreteBiare prior to eWiWO. 6. Therefore, ft te clear that white decidlng petNiener^s appticrtton, ttieSub- Divisionat CTRcar has misdiractad ttself and has not made ^oper eBqirtry. Therefore, the Sub-Divlsiomil Officer is directed to hold proper enqutry In ttie ,.aea ^^ I1 1 y s 'it,^ 3 ^ matterof issuance of permanOTt caste certficate In ttie light of order fwssed in ttie case of Narendra Deharlya(Supra) and order passed tn Ramsajiwan (Supra), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall eonduct enquiiy expedWeusly and decide ttiematter as eariy as possibto. ^..-^...^w..,,.^^^^'---' DMpU 7. WittitheaforesaidobsetvaBQns/direGtions.fcapeUUonisflnallydispQsed off. ...-. ' ^ i :—7— !;l?ill®.-. .__sdA.'.:'...;.:; •:':: |l:'%SSanintIralMohan5hiwastawa; 1;,'.:^''1:: Judge ! : '