C ^ f-0^ l^- THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. No. s-2-r) /2007 ^c? ,.^ : UrmilaBai .^y/ d^ •Q^y <e~ ^ RESPONDENT W/o. Tarun Meshram . Aged about- 32 years, Caste- Halba, R/o.- Behind Buddh Vihar, Ward No. 16, Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon (C.G. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretaiy, G.A.D., ; D.K.S. Bhawan , Raipur (C.G. Sub Divisional Officer /' i'" i-" i/r) '2r'" ^ A^° '-.<^ ^ <>NC>V"' (Revenue), Rajnandgaon, 4.o-'^' >'~^ Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) y' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m ff^ T ^r 'ssi ^rraRra, 'sritwre. fawiuy 3Ti^?r j»?ra? __...4}.,.f.£)^,.3^?7f-/ti7 tiiiiwr giw^ f^fl' 311^1 ^il R;-< 31ESI aii ^f?g '•^. ^-- o^ SIT^I TOiiwnfN SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. 08.03.2011 irti Shri Anup lytejumdar, counsel foi Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy ©overp The petitioner hE®filed this India, aggrieved by order dated 29/6/ Divisionat Officer, whereby the peti certificate has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petition^ Halba tnbe. The petitioner moved an for issuance of caste certiflcate as thd authority to issue caste certificate. enquiry and thereafter, passed the in(i| counsei for the petitioner submits t| considered the entire material which wd submission, rejection of petitioner's based on the statement given by the Block, Rajnanc^aon. The Sub-Divisiot petKioner belongs to Halba KoshU ca( record to come to such conclusion. It ij petitioner that the petitioner had institutions as afeo some other the existing counaellor and both ofthefn Haiba tribe. On the other hand, learned coi^i Divisional OfRcer, upon reca'ving the In that enquiry, the RevenueJnspecto^ the fact flnding report which did not su| the peUtioner. ty ©overpmsntftsdvocata for the State. petitit)n underArticte 226 ofttie ConstKution of ff)6 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub- ioner's application for grant of caste pia<(ed certifidates ctit^i<'i^ii M{fwi ^ tsvSt <f^T^R ^.srfStfiT 3n^r ir submitted that the petHioner belongs to aplplication before the Sub-DivisionaiOfBcer Sub-Divisionat Officer is the competent FThe Sub-Divisionai Offlcer made some ipugned order dated 29/6/0®. Leamed that the Sub-Divisional Offic»r has not ^s frfaced before it by the petitioner. In his for issuance of caste certiflcate is |Pres!dent of Chhattisgarh Hatba Adivasi lal Officer has wrongly recorded that the »tewithout there being any evidence on the contention of learned counsel forthe on record certificat^ of educationai issued by the ex-coun^jfcllor as atso have said that the petitioner belongs to isel for the State submHted that the Sub- ipplication of the petitioner, held enquiiy. as weli as the Tahsildar, both submitted iport the claim of the petHioner. He further ^- ?-7 T \J^ ./ ff XI-HC-22 ^sr -^WvW, (i>Ti)<n®.f«)ci]«y 37I^T^ra> ^ , ..^...Q..'^...-2^!^'' WW-fTsh*1|Eh •iw^r' Sdtffqil l<;-ti.<=b sn^i ^w^ 'w?? \- y' W^ITOIIWHfCT -^ colne b^sed ahd als submits that the certifKsates from educatfonal Learned counsel for the State submitsl record for the Sub-Dwisional Officer to not entHled to issuance of csste certificate. recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer not entitied to invoke wrjt jurisdtotion, t colleded during thecouree of enquiry Divisional Officer. After going through the pleading^ respective parties, 1 fmd that Ihe Sub-Di| report ofthe Revenue Inspector as well not support the claim of the petitioners. ^ aiso recorded the statement of the President the statement ofthe petitioner and consi^ered the matter, 1 am not inclined to interfere vtrth by the Sub-Divisional Officer and his ord^r on However, it appears that there is status of the petitioner. Therefore, it vjfould interest of justice to grant liberty to the| Caste Scrutiny Committee. In case, before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, regard to the caste status of the petitior(er, the Supreme Court tn the case of Ku. Commissioner, Tribat Development 94. Wrth the aforesaid observations, tillltl'ill 'WRTt' t} fS^9 tlfl^K W SlfiaiT 311^1 institutions are also contradfctoiy. that there was materiai avaiiabie on to a satisfaction that the petitioner is i. According to him, the flndingof fact on some material, thes petitioner is ^) re-appreclate the material evidence to substitute the finding of the Sub- and material piaced on record by the ^isional Officer made an enqury. The S the Tahsitdar is on record, which does appears that the Sub-Divisior»lOfficer of the association of Halbatribes, various documente. In this view of fSh the flnding which has been recorded petitioner's appliration. serious disputa with regard to the caste be proper and expedtent in the petitioner to approach the State tevel petitioner submte such applicatiai Committee shail hold an enquitywith er, in accordance vflth the judgment of Patil and another v. Additional others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court tbe thb M.idhuri ahd t^ie petition is (inatly disposed off. Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge