; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.GJ WRIT PETITION N0. .'i^oO /2004 XL- \ ^ PETITIONERS 1. Ai ^ %^' •^ ¥'.^ ^iX^K "' ^ww ^^ ['<>-" ^u Lalchand, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Kishanlal, resident of Adbhar, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Bisahu Ram, aged about 80 years, son of Shri Sukhiram, caste - Bhariya, resident of village Bachkhat, Post Bachkhat, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS •^. / ^ ^ \l' o^^- 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, ,<?'\^ Department of - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Upper Collector, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tah. Pendra Itoad, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER / ORDERS. DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRirPETLTION N0.3500 OF 2004 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Lalchand & Another Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others 2. (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitutionof India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri 1.8. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 12-3-2004 on the basis of report dated 13-8-2003 submitted by the Tahsildar declined to issue a permanent social status certificate. The clispute involved in the case on hand is very limited, as according to the competent officer the word "•^Trf^TT" is mentioned in the schedule list and the petitioner claims to be "^.TT". It is not clear asto whether "'mf^TT" and "^Tf^TT" are one and the same. Thus, it would be proper, the same may be examined by the expert committee i.e. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") about the fact of belonging of the petitioner to a particular community as mentioned above. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with a liberty reserved to the petitioners to make an application before the Committee. If an application is made by the petitioners, the Committee is directed to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, on its own merits and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others , Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and another2 and Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and Others3. -—-— 3. 1 (1994)68cc241 2 (1995)48cc 32 3AIR1996SC1338 Sd/- Sadsh K. Agniliottri Judge