3w”: tr“ mrqgpg; Oxawi 7 @ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wRIT pE'rrrmN (C) N0. \(Kq? /201 1 / PETITIONER . / Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Shri.Kunj Ram, aged about 36 years,‘R/o. Village Katghari, P.S. Pondidalha, Tahsil — Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) 495 552. VERSUS / .rl. RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, S Through: Secretary, chedule Tribe and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Chairman, Chhattisgarh - . State Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Commission, 61 Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Director and Member (investigation), High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Schedule Tribe Training and Investigation. Department, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Complex, Raipur (C.G.) High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through its Member Secretary and Commissioner, Sche “lule Tribe Training and Inve stigation Department, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar,‘ Sector—4, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Collector, strict Janjgir—Champa /‘” (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiiCLE 226 OF THE , CONSTITUTION OW INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S) As mentioned in the causa- title. / @ Di HIGH COI IRT ()F CHI-I AT'FISGARH AT BI] ,ASPUR WRIT PETI'HON (C) No. 1285 0f 2011 j WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON STITUI'ION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agni'hotri, .L Present: Smt. Naushina Af‘rin Ali: Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moo11hy, Deputy Advocate General for the State. O R D E R (Passed on 13“; day of September, 201 1) § Learned counsel appearing for the oetitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained caste certificate from the competent. authority declaring the petitioner as “Pathari Warm” caste. a, Scheduled Tribe on 08.05.2008 (Annexure P/Z). Therea0er, the matter was refetred for verification to the respondent No. 2 zle. the High Power Caete Scrutiny Committee. The respondent No, 2, without. a$ording opportunity of hearing or without. verifying the fact asto whether ‘W" or "’q%TRPI” are one and the same, rejected the caste certificate issued by the competent. authority, Vide order dated 28.01.20 11 (Annexure P/ l). 2. Ms. Ali further submits that. it is a case of violation of fundamental right of the petitioner as any order prejudicial to the interest ofthe petitioner cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice. This comes within the ambit of inhingement of ftmdamental rights as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that no one shall be condemned unheard. PETITIONER : Rajendm Kumar. VER SI ES RESPONDENTS Stme of Chhattisgarh & Others. 2 Qhn Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing fot the State fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing was aEorded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in Delhi iramport Corporafian v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Othersj, held as under: “202."..It is now. well settled that the ‘audi alleram pariem’ mle which in essence, enforces the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution is applicable not only to quasi-judicial ordere but to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party-in- question unless the application of the rule has heen expressly excluded by the Act or Regulation or Rule which is not the case here. Rules ofnalural justice do not supplant but. supplement. the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the Rule of Law which permeates our constitution demands that. it has to be observed both substantially and procedurally. Considering from all aspects Regulation 9(b) is illegal and void as it, is arbitrary, discriminatoty and without any guidelines for exercise ofthe power, Rule of law posits that the power is to be exercised in a, manner which is just fair and reasonable and not in an unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary manner leaving room for discrimination.” Having regard to the above stated facts and circumstances of the instant case and applying the well settled principles of law to the case on hand, the impugted order has been passed without aEording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thus, the order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The petition is allowed, No order asto costs. ‘ Sdl- ‘SATISH K. ANGN‘HORI V W.P.(S) No. 6244I2009. dated 24.01 .2011 Judge