HK3H ^3UEtT OF CJ-MATT^^^N AT BIU^I^ Writ Appeal No.303 of 2010 APPELLANT: Respondente No. 7 fi 8 1. 2. Sannay Lal Sahu, S/o Shri Mahi^uram Sahu, aged about 48 years, R/o Santoshtpara, Camp -2, Bhiiai, Di8trictDurg(Chhattfe^rh) Rama Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Chetram Vishwakarma, ageci about 47years, R/o Baikunthpur, Camp2, BhiJai. Distrjct Durg (Chhattlsgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS: Petitioner Respondent/ RespondentNo.1 Respondent/ R^pondent No.2 Respondent/ Respondent No.3 4. RespondenV Respondent No.4 Respondent/ Respondent No.5 5. 6. Shri Rajendra Stngh (Arora), S/o Shri Sujan Singh, aged about 55 yeare, Ex Counotllor, Munteipal Corporation, Bhilai, R/o MIG-10, Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Qhilai Nagar, Di^fict Durg (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh. throughthe (a) Seor^ary, Department ofTriba! Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Nantralaya, Raipur, Distrtet Raipur (Chhattlsgarh) (b) Secretary, Department of Urban AdmlnistFation and Development, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ra^pur, District Rajpur<cnhatt^garh)n Commlssloner, Dtrectorate of Urban Administration and Development, RDA Bujldjng, 1st Floor, Bajrang Mark^, Raipur, Distrlct Ralpur, Chhattisgarh AnusuGhtt Jan^rti Praman Patra Uccha Satriya ChhsmNn Samttr through Its Secretary, Pandlt Ravishankar Shultfa University Parisar, Dtetrict Raipiir (Chftattisgarh) Coltector, Durg, Distrfet Durg (Chhattisgarh) Superintendent ^of Poltoe, Durg, Ois&rict Diurg (Chhattisgarii) Respond^it/ RespondentNo.6 7. Dr. T.K. Vaishnav, Member afid Joint Dire^or. AnusucNt Janjati Praman Patra Uccha Steiriya Chhanbjn Samifi, Pandtt Ravishankar Shukla Uisiverstty, Parisar, Raipur, Distalct Ratpur (ChhattiSQarh) Present: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Sr. Adwcate wtth Shri Ajay MJshm, Advocate fbrtheappellants. Miss Deepali Pandey.Panel Lawyerforthe State. Divisioii Bench: HoR*We Shri Oliii»ndraMi^wa & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ; JUDGMENT (7-9-2010) l. Respondent No.1 herein flted a Wrtt Petttjon and prayed for quashing of the order dated 22-9-2009 (Annexure-P/1) passed by AnusuGhit Janjati Praman Patra Uccha Stariya ChhanNn Samtti (for shert the Committee') whereby the Committee has uphetd its order dsrted 27- 2007 whereby the social status certificate granted to respondent N@J showing him to be of "Lohar" caste has been canoelted and further the order dated 26/28.8.2009 passed by Commtesfoner, Dlrectorate of Urban AdministraUon and Development, whereby respondent No.1 has been removed from the post of Qouncillor, Ward No»22, Munjcipal Corporation, Bhilai, consequently he was dedared dtequall^ed fbrthe post of Coundllor for a period of five yeam. 2. Learned Single Judge has altowed the petition reserving the liberty to the respondents authoritles to take appFoprtate action in accordance wjth law, if soadvlsed, with the observations that 'on perusart of the records, it is found that the High Level Caste Scruttny CommMee has examined the genuinenessand validfty of a provteional caste eerttftcate Issued to thepetttioner on 10-4-^XX). Life of a provislonal caste certificate is only for six months. The Committee, wlthotrt examtofng the facts as to whether the valldity period of the prov(stonat easte certjflcate. which has already expired, ean be examined by tt^e Commlttee, has proceeded with the matter. tt appears to be a ftrtlte „. "^ :"i'?'^% 1^' ^ ^ exercise on the part of the CommKtee. The validity of the provistonal caste certificate issued on 1Q.4.2000 cameto an end in the roonth of October, 2000 itself. The Committee has unnecessarily gone intothe validity and Qenuineness of a certifteate which was not in existence at all, when the complaint was made'. Wtth these observaticms, the impugned order dated 22.9.2009 was quashed. 3. Heard leamed counsel for the appellarrts. 4 The High PowerCasteScrutinyCommittefthasbeenconstJtutedby the State Government as per directiCTis ofthe Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil aiid anoth»r Vs. Addfc Commissloner, Trittal Devetopment and others f^sorted In Al^ 1995 SUPREME COURTMandtheentirepFoeedweforlBSuaRceof social status certffiteate, theft' scrutiny and their eqiprwal has been enumerated in para-12 ofthe abovejudgment. In sub-para-11 of para- 12, it has been hetd that the order passedbythe Committee shatl be final and condusive only subject to the proceedings under ArtJde226 of the Const'rtution. Sub-para-12 provides that no suft or other proceedjngs before any other authority should lie. Sub-para-13 reads asunder:- "13. The High Court would dlspose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a pertod of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petitton/ Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a single Judge, then no further appeal would iie against thal order to the Division Bench but sub|ect to spe^ail leave underArttele136." 5. In view of the directions of the Supreme Court In the stoowe ctted judgment, we are of the opinion that the instant writ appeat agatast the order of learned Single Judge is not malrtainable and the same Is dismissed as not maintainabte. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge 8d/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge