^ c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ,AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. —-'——-/20p2^ PETITIONER:- 'n' Smt. Kalpana Lalji, wife ofAsim Raj Lalji, house wife , aged about 38 R/o.Ward No.l, Manendragarh, Dist. Koria (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: , t. State of C.G., Ministry ofTribal Welfare, through its secretary , Secretariat Raipur ft^.^ Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. ^^^Z"l~aT':1'.,"' ^•^;.v.l,''^$. Collector Koria Dist. Koria(C.G.) .»'M"^. ^>My ^'^^'[ \-^v^ ^>"" ^ 4. Sub Divisional Officer^Manendragarh, Dist. Koria 5. NaibTahsildar,Manendragarh, Dist. Koria (C.G.). \^^' PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:- FT XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^rw^n^T ^lt^^f^T ^^ 3'oET ^NMq, ^Tn^!^^, f^<ni^y OT^T M^^ ^l*1«T«»^|cb ^.w)'.:.m../.^. ^ 200 f^s' 3TT^T^RTT^R:^cT 1.8.2005 Shri B.P. Gupta, coun| Shri Sandeep Dubey, ^ Heard. The petitioner has p| Article 226/227 of the Con^ legality, propriety and corr] passed by the CollectorJ 17.5,2002 passed by the A| Division, Bilaspur thereby c| the petitioner. The case of the peti application for grant of tri| supported by her affidav| enquiry and looking into certificate (Annexure P-3) was valid for a period of complaint being made by enquiry was conducted Manendragarh, District Ko| report of the SDO, the C^ 19.3.2002 and cancelled favour of the petitioner. Ag^ been preferred by the petiti| by the Additional Com| 17.5.2002. Counsel for the considering the applicatic| <=hi^f<n41-i Hi^<nT^'*tel^'<f^<-di< ^'^rf^TW^T sel for the petitioner. 3ovt. Adv. for the State. 'eferred this writ petition under ^titution of India questioning the ectness of order dated 19.3.2002 Koriya and also order dated dditional Commissioner, Bilaspur [ismissing the appeal preferred by Lioner is that she' submitted an be caste certificate in her favour t and report of Patwari. After the report of Patwari a caste was issued in her favour, which six months only, However, on a one Shyam Sunder Poddar^ an )y the Sub D-ivisional Officer, 'iya and based upon the enquiry ollector passed the order dated the caste certificate issued in linst the said order an appeal has Dner, but the same was dismissed mmissioner vide order dated Detitioner submits that once n, affidavit and report of the XI-HC-22 3^T ^I^M^, ^rftwT^, ^rray 311^1 ^5|Cft ^l^cil sh^lich -^-•^^^^^^^ ^p^ 200 fc|^ 3T1^T^T f^TT^3Tr^T ^t^^T ..^' y^ Y^ 'V V- /^ 3T[^?T?;RiT^R:^fN -'Z- Patwari a caste certificatd petitioner, then before respondents ought to have enquiry of caste of the petit| Apex Court in the matter| another V. Addl. Commis) others reported in AIR 199| Admittedly, the matt^ Committee constituted for t] the petitioner submits th^ orders the respondents are enquiry in view of above juc^ therefore, the respondents chi^I<n41vi WT^ff ^' te^l' <f^<-a< ^3:rf^T3TI^FT was granted in favour of the cancelling . the certificate the followed the procedure regarding ioner as laid down by the Hon'ble of Kumari Madhuri Patil aad ^oner, Tribal Development and 3 Su^reme Court 94. |r has not been enquired by the }\ie purpose, therefore, counsel for |.t before passing the impugned under legal duty toconduct an Igment. He further submitted that may be directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance witl|i the above judgment, to which learned counsel for the respjondents has no objection. Having heard learne having regard to the facts a petition of the petitioner is set aside and respondents ^ counsel for the parties and pd circumstances of the case, the [allowed, the impugned orders are are directed to get the enquiry conducted in accordance ^ith the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and dec| In view of above ord| Nos.791/03 8s 5815/05 also! Certified copy as per rjales. |de the matter thereafter. br, M.(W.)P. No.298/05 and I.A. stand disposed of. ——— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^f^)