ft' '^-6- g?^"^A HON. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.N (90 OF 2006"^s^s. ^,esesAe^;^15.D- ' &aWA--"' ^Dilip Hedau oflate Shri Hatiram Hedau, Aged about 45 years, Resident of E-9,Vishal Nagar Behind Chhattisgarh Hotel, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). PETITIONER ^' vs. ^\. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G. /2.. The Principal Secretary, Rural Industries Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G. y.3. The Commissioner, Tribal Development and Principal Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled'Tribes Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G. »C^4. ^lanaging Director, .7 ^< ^^>Chhaftisgarh Hastshilpa Vikas Board,. ff ^y RaipurC.G. . , . ^ L; vb''?' ; . . '•VZ^ The Collector, Rajnandgaon, ^ . _ <--</ .—.'^. .— . ' . ~ ^~ '^r ^- District Rajnandgaon, C.G. •ry- 4." Collelctor, Balaghat, District Balaghat M.P. RESPONDENTS llli WRIT PETITION UNDERARTS. 226/227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'te. HIGH COURT OF CMMATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR (Hon. Wlr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 6100 of2006 PETIInONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Dilip Hedau State ofChhattisgarh and others Shri Ashish Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma PL for respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6. Shri Anurag Daya! Shrivastava; counsel for respondent No.4. WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (21.10.2010) Challenge in this petifion is to the order dated 25.09.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short the "Committee") by which it has been held that the petitioner does not belong to Halba Caste (Scheduled Tribe) rather he is Halba (Kosti) which comes under Other Backward Classes. The Committee has further directed the respondents for taking action againstthe petitioner. 2. Gounsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure as mandated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal DeveloDmentand others, reiterated in Director ofTribal Welfare, Government ofA.P.v. Laveti Giri andAnother, has not been complied with in letter and spirit while considering the case of the petitioner for verification of his social status certificate. 3. At the very outset, counsel for the parties jointly and fairly submit that this case is squarely coveredby the decision of this Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & others and other connected matters, wherein this Court after considering allaspectsof the matterand the law laid down by the fc B:^ ,4 Supreme Court in urnpteen number of cases in paragraph 26 of the judgment and order, has madecertain clarifications for verification of the easte certificate. 4. In view of above, impugned drder dated 25.09.2006 (Annexure P-5) is quashed. The Committee is directecl to proceed with the matter in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Madhuri Patil (Supra) and Laveti Giri (Supra) and further explained by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (Supra) and other connected matters, as early as possible. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SdA Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^: ^^•-FKS^S^S^.