,1-'**'* \^1 bV^ ^ -':....-^1',1^6/' ^^ cr —5nS@i1Ct1 '-.•'^'i'-y i-:- IS THB HIGK COURTOF CHHATTISGASH w.p.fsiso, t?5<$?^) /aoo' PETITIQNSS .d?" ^ ^^ ^^y y &>v Bharat Nag, S/o. Birbal Nag fManjhi''}, ate'Ht 42 years, R/©.KhenBa, Tafasfl PratappHr, District SHrguja tCG;} II State of Cithatti^arfa, %r0Qgb; Secretaiy Admijati Kalyan Vibhag Mantrateya, Raip-Hr, District Raipur {Ch'hatti.sgarh} 2f 3] <°-" 4]: CGBSmssiQiier, ASsajati Anusuchit Jati VQsas, Ravishantear VishvavMlyalaya Parisar, Raipur fCQ) Collector, Surguja, Bistrict Surgqja {CG) ChhattM^arh:, R^ya Anasuchit Jajgati Aavog, Raiiydr, Thr&ugfa: it-s Secretary, Al-Jal Vihar Cotony, Raipur, I>tetrict. Raipur iCG] Sub-Divisi&nal OScer {Rev«n'uei F^-atappur, District Surguja {CGj Mahendra Gupta S/o. Ramchandra Gupta-, R/f), fsaas: Dand, P&llce Stati&n & Tah.sil R-atappur, Oistt Surguja (C<3-) W UNBBS AR'HCLS 226 OFTHB fvfW3'^fSVSff^'?*TiTfVSS' rVE? TSTTtTH ^•^fSv^s.sS.fi.f ia^ayS" ^pS iiv: /' HIGH COURT OF CffiiATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRrTPETmCfrf(S) No.3a)0af2007 PETmONER : BharatNag. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Ofhers. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmj'riON OF INDIA 8B: Hun'Me Shri Sattsh K. Andlwtei.J. Preseitf: Shri Manoj Paraajpa, Advoeate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Paiel Lawyea-forthe State/respoodect No. 1 to 3 and 5. Sfari J.A-Lohani, Advocate far the resp<mdait No. 6. OHALORUER (Passed oa 13th day of Jaxaiary, 2010) With fhe conseut ofleamed counsel appeam^ tbr tfae parties, the matte: is heard ftBaBv. 1. The challenge in Ifais petition is to the repcrt dated 11.12.2006 (Aimexure f/lS), whereby the Sub Divisioaal Qfficer (Revanue) (for short 'SDO') Pratappur, District Surguja, declared that the petitioner does not belorigs to "Manjhi" easte. Putsuuit to thatAe Collector, vide order dated 19.04.2007 (Amiexure P/18) directad Ihe respondait No. 2, i.e. Commissioner, Tribal Wetfare, to lodge Fi«stIntbmiation Report (for short 'the FIR') and to imtiate proceedings for suspensien. 2. This Court, on 14.06.2007 st^ed fl» sffect aad oper^ioa of the Snq>ugned wder dated 19.04.2007 (Aanexure P/18). 3. It appears Ihat Ifae authouties have taken steps a^mM ths petftiona- on tiie baais of the repMt submitted by the Sub Divisionat Ofiieer (Revenue) Pratappur. The petitiona- had ah-eady obtained caste cerdficate Ihwn Tahsildar, Pratppur. It is well settled Ifaat the SDO (Revenue) is not conyetait to make an cnquiry in tiie lig|rt of the 2 observd:ioas made by the Supreme Court m £u. Mwihitri Patil v. AdStwnal Cammr. Tnbal Devdapmen^ smd State qfAfaftarflsJte'a <£ Otha's v. Ravi Pndittsh B^ulalSmgh Pannai^. Iffliere is any dispute witfi regard to the social status of a person» the High Power Caste Serutiny CQnumttee (for short 'the Committee *) aluie is cciqpetait to decide such diqnrte. 4. Adnuttecfly, the dispute was not refared to the Conunittee and the Collector, Surguja on Ifae repart submitted by Ihe 8DO (Revenue) Pratappur, has directed lodguig of FUR. and takmg scppiapsiate steps against tfae petitionw. 5. Having heard learwd counsel aippeans^ fw the partas aid faaving perused the documents ^ipeaded tha-eto, Ihe impagned orders appears to be vitiated on account ofthe faet tfiat the needfiil has not bem done-in accordance with Ifae law as laid down in Madkwri Patil (svpraf aad Rwi Prakash BahiUitSw^h Pamwr (suprt^. 6. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugued report dated 11.12.2006 (Amiexure P/15) and tiie Mder dated 19.04.2<»7(Aimexure P/18) are quashed. No order asto costs. 7. Oa the request of leamed counsel appeaiing fiw tfie respondants^State, liberty is reserved to the respondents/State to refer the matter to the CQmmittee, if so advised. Ifar examinmg the matter in aecwdaace with law, as enimciated by Ifae Supreme C!ourt in varioua cases and to {wss appropriate wder within the time lunit (»esCTibedby ffae SBpr®iifiCourt in MadhmifSafil (siyra). Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit * (1994)65cc 241 2(2007)1SCC40