CIVIL REVISION No.971 OF 2008 **** Rameshwar Singh son of Late Raghunath Singh, resident of village Pranpur, P.O. Sonhan, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur (Bhabua) presently posted as Clerk in CANARA BANK, P.O. Jharia, P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad…….Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua, P.O. and P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur (Bhabua). 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kaimur, at Bhabua, P.S. Bhabua, District Bhabua (Kaimur). 3. The District Welfare Officer, Kaimur Bhabua, P.O. and P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur (Bhabua). …..Defendants 1st set-Opposite parties 1st set. 4. The General Manger, Canara Bank, Regional Office, Law- Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. …Defendant 2nd set-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Madhusudan Kumar, Advocate. For opposite party nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, G.A.3 For opposite party no.4 : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates. P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ----------- S.N. Hussain, J. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 10.04.2008 by which Subordinate Judge-I, Kaimur dismissed Title Suit No.105 of 2000 on the only point that the said suit was not maintainable as the relief sought therein was beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and was within the jurisdiction of Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 94 relied upon by Patna High Court in case of Shree K. Bhagwan Gond @ Shree Bhagwan Prasad @ Shree Bhagwan Gond vs. The Union of India & others, reported in 2003(2) P.L.J.R. 840. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for declaration that he was ‘Kharwar’ under Scheduled Tribe and also for declaration that the defendants’ certificate declaring him to be ‘Kahar’ under Backward Caste was illegal 2 and without jurisdiction and also for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to get a certificate of Scheduled Tribe. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. 3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties following issues were framed by the trial court:- (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Whether the suit is barred under the provision of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (v) Whether the plaintiff and his predecessor belonged to Scheduled Tribe of Kharwar and whether he was original resident of village Pranpur, P.S. Bhabua of Kaimur district? (vi) Whether defendant first set had any authority to review its certificate granted earlier? (vii) Whether ancestors of the plaintiff were resident of village Sapnautia? (viii) Whether the order of Collector, Kaimur, nullifying his certificate of Scheduled Tribe, was legal and justified? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a certificate of Scheduled Tribe? (x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 4. On the aforesaid issues, evidence were led and arguments were made on behalf of both the parties, whereafter Subordinate Judge-I, Kaimur, dismissed the suit only on the basis of issue no.(i) without considering the other issues holding that the suit was not maintainable as the said court had no jurisdiction to decide the same and the jurisdiction to decide such matters was with the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (Supra) and also in view of the decision of this court in case of Shree K. Bhagwan Gond @ Shree Bhagwan Prasad @ Shree Bhagwan Gond (Supra). 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the court below stating that the Civil Court had ample jurisdiction to entertain such suits for declaration with regard to caste, as earlier the authorities had granted certificate of Scheduled Tribe of ‘Kharwar’ caste to the plaintiff, but subsequently they had issued another certificate holding the plaintiff to be ‘Kahar’ 3 which belonged to the backward caste. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and another, reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court 718. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is a clerk in Canara Bank (opposite party no.4) at Jharia within the district of Dhanbad having been appointed on the basis of a certificate granted to him by the District Magistrate, Kaimur certifying that the plaintiff was a ‘Kharwar’ under the Scheduled Tribe. He further submits that the petitioner’s brother was also granted a certificate by the authority concerned certifying that he was ‘Kharwar’. It is also stated that at the time of promotion the bank as per its Rules asked the plaintiff to furnish a fresh caste certificate, whereafter the plaintiff-petitioner applied for the same before the District Magistrate, Kaimur who instead of giving him a certificate of ‘Kharwar’, granted a certificate that the plaintiff belonged to ‘Kahar’ caste which was included in Backward Caste without cancelling the earlier certificate. 7. It is also stated that against the said certificate and orders, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.4424 of 1997 which was dismissed for default on 10.08.1998, whereafter Civil Review No.223 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 12.02.1999. However, when the plaintiff filed L.P.A. No.240 of 1999 against the aforesaid order, it was disposed of on 07.02.2000 with an observation that the petitioner may seek declaration from an appropriate court. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.105 of 2000 before the Subordinate Judge-I, Kaimur for declaration that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe being a ‘Kharwar’, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner claims that the earlier caste certificate of ‘Kharwar’ granted to the petitioner not having been cancelled, the authorities were not justified in granting a certificate of another caste. In this regard, he relies upon an order of a Bench of this court dated 30.01.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9749 of 2003 in which it was held as follows:- 4 “…It must be kept in mind that a person at the birth is either a Scheduled Tribe or is not a Scheduled Tribe. If he is a Scheduled Tribe, an acknowledgment by a Public Officer that he is a Scheduled Tribe is necessary which binds everyone. Such acknowledgment comes in the form of caste certificate issued by an appropriate officer of the State. Until such time that caste certificate is not revoked, no one in the world far less the authorities of the State can say that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe….” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (Supra) as well as the decision of Patna High Court in case of Shree K. Bhagwan Gond @ Shree Bhagwan Prasad @ Shree Bhagwan Gond (Supra) are not applicable to the facts of this case, as the Patna High Court decision is only as to whether the question of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would be decided by Union of India, whereas the decision of the Apex Court is with respect to cancellation of caste certificate. It is further stated that in the instant case the question is not as to whether ‘Kharwar’ comes under the Scheduled Tribe as admittedly ‘Kharwar’ is a Scheduled Tribe and the only question involved is as to whether the petitioner is a ‘Kharwar’. 10. On the other hand, the stand of learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities (opposite party nos.1 to 3) as well as learned counsel for Canara Bank (opposite party no.4) are exactly similar as they totally rely upon the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (Supra) and the decision of Patna High Court in case of Shree K. Bhagwan Gond @ Shree Bhagwan Prasad @ Shree Bhagwan Gond (Supra) as well as a decision of Bombay High Court in case of Pralhad Banduji Lodhi vs. The Collector and the District Magistrate and others, reported in 2001 Bombay 416 and on the basis of the said decisions they claim that the Civil Court cannot have any jurisdiction to decide such case. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the only point to be decided in the instant civil revision is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner with respect to his caste certificate is maintainable in view of the settled principles of law. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Abdul Rahman (Supra) in which it was merely held that for 5 the purposes of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure was required to be followed by the High Court. In terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Civil Court can dispose of a suit on preliminary issues. Nothing in the said decision speaks about the maintainability of a suit regarding declaration of caste of any person. In the said circumstances this case does not, in any way, help the petitioner, rather it justifies the decision of the court below disposing of the suit on a preliminary issue of maintainability. 12. The Supreme Court as far back as in the year 1995 has laid down the law with respect to the aforesaid legal position in its judgment passed in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (Supra) that the Government shall constitute a Scheduled Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification and issuance of social status certificate and the grievance of any person concerned shall be decided by the said Committee and any falsity found therein would be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude. It was also decided by the Apex Court that the order passed by the aforesaid Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no suit or other proceedings before any authority should lie. This decision was followed by Bombay High Court in case of Pralhad Banduji Lodhi (Supra) in which also it was specifically held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try such suits. A Division Bench of this court also considered the matter in case of Shree K. Bhagwan Gond @ Shree Bhagwan Prasad @ Shree Bhagwan Gond (Supra) and held that the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi is the nodal agency for specification of communities and hence any person aggrieved by any certificate or declaration with regard to his caste or tribe can apply before the said nodal agency for redressal of his grievances with respect thereto. 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the court below holding that the suit for reliefs claimed therein was not maintainable, as it was beyond 6 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and was within the jurisdiction of Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi. 14. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed, but in the facts of this case there would be no order as to cost. Furthermore, the petitioner will be at liberty to move before the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi raising all the objections and points taken by him on the merits of his claim. Any action or inaction of the said authority would be only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Patna High Court, (S.N. Hussain, J.) Dated, 9 th April, 2010 N.A.F.R./harish