^ C f~ \ ^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT QF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) N0. ^3 l^ / 2008 PETITIONER ^ r-""^ v^-;^ ^^^'"' fcc^,%>:::-" ^\^>'"" \^ <'r\^. ^ \^~" RESPONDENTS ,.:-^^^-'<'^ ¥^ '^•^^^^ >^0'U',A& Rakesh Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Bhaiya Lal Verma, Aged about 41 years, Incharge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Champa Division, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS , 1) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) , 2) State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 3) The Engineer - in - Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 4) Shri P.K.Janwade, Superintending Engineer, Jagdalpur, Public Works Department, Bastar Mandal, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.) / 5) Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission - Through the Secretary, 61 Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ^6) Chhattisgarh State High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through its Director, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^sws.h^^f^^'^^^^^^ hilGH^QURLOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASF^ WRIT PETITION (C) N0.6312 OF 2008 fjlUBOf^ER Rakesh Kumar Verma Versus BJ=SPp_NDEN:[S State pf Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. PrBsent: • Shri Ashish Surana, Advdcate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Adovate and r?! Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Anup Majumdar and Shri Sourabh Dangi, Advocates for the respondent No.4. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.6. QRDERJORAU (Passed on this 8th day of September. 2010) 1 By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the ehquiry in respect of verification of caste certificate granted by the competent authority, conducted by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee'') and further the respondent authoritie? rnay be directed not to harass the petitioner by going into enquiry, as the caste cerl.ificate has been obtained by the petitioner after proper enquiry. S The sole ground for questioning the enquiry is once the caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority after proper enquiry as conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008, the Committee is not justified in holding a fresh enquiry on the basis of complaint made by some persons. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the scherne as laid down by the Supreme Court \n Ku. MacJlhuri Patil v. Additional Commr. Tribal Dewelopmenl (1994) 6 SCC 241 .^..^.^^,. ^^••%^ '^, ^ ^ 4. A 6. 7. \ ^/^ subsequently approved in umpteen number of decisions bf the Suprerne Court mandates an enquiry by the Committee. EEven, if the proper enquiry has been conducted by the competent authority, thei Committee has toconduct aii independent enquiry also. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The content'on of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents merits acceptance. The enquiry has to be done by the Cornmittee in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Suprerne Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), which has further b^eh reiterated with explanation by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is mjsconceived and frivolous, which deserves to be rejected. The enquiry cannot be held as harassment on the ground that no further enquiry is permitted is alsowithout any basis and contrary to the well settled principles of law and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteen number of decision as aforestated. In the result, the writpetition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. No order asto costs. _ _^-——— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge GovOri WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010