WP(C) 5663/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI This case was substantially heard on 7.12.2011. Mr. M. Singh, the learne d counsel for the petitioner had addressed arguments before this Court and in re ply, Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 8, had also mad e his submission. However, the matter was posted for further hearing in view of the fact that Mr. Dutta wanted to place a judgment for consideration of this Cou rt. 2. Today, Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisti ng Mr. Dutta, has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Municipal Commi ssioner, Calcutta and Ors V. Salil Kumar Banerjee and Ors, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 108, in support of the arguments advanced. 3. Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N . Dutta, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned State Counsel for the r espondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. None appears for respondent No. 7, All Assam Tribal Sangha, notice on whom was deemed to have been served by an order dated 24.2.201 1. 4. The matter pertains to selection for allotment of LPG De alership to be commissioned at Chhaygaon under the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., for short, BPCL, which was open only for Scheduled Tribe category candidat es. The present petitioner, the respondent No. 8 and 19 other applicants had sub mitted their applications. The respondent No. 8 was issued a Scheduled Tribe Cer tificate by the competent authority on 11.11.90. In the merit list dated 30.08.2 001, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2 and the respondent No. 8 at Sl. No. 1. An objection dated 30.8.2001 was filed by the Guwahati District Committee of All Assam Tribal Sangha against the selection of the respondent No. 8 on the gro und that the respondent No. 8 does not belong to Rabha community and, therefore, she is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. 5. On 19.10.2011, an order was passed by the Additional Deputy Comm issioner, Kamrup declaring that the respondent No. 8 does not belong to Schedule d Tribe (Rabha) Community. This gave rise to filing of a writ petition being No. WP(C) 7751/2001. The present petitioner also filed a writ application which was numbered as WP(C) No. 7736/2001 praying for a direction that in view of the fac t that a declaration had been made that the present respondent No. 8 does not be long to the Scheduled Tribe(Rabha) Community, he should be allotted the dealersh ip. 6. On 25.1.2002, on the basis of a report of a Circle Officer of Pa lashbari Revenue Circle, the Deputy Commissioner concluded that the respondent N o. 8 should be treated as a candidate belonging to OBC category with Sub-Caste ’ Koch’ and informed the BPCL authorities that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate gra nted to the respondent No. 8 should be treated as cancelled. This resulted in fi ling of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1496/2002. 7. All the aforesaid three writ petitions were taken up for conside ration together and this Court by a judgment and order dated 4.1.2005, holding t hat the present respondent no. 8 was not given any opportunity to show cause bef ore the adverse declaration relating to her social status was made, disposed of the writ petitions directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), to take a fresh decision in the matter. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court dated 4.1.2005 , after hearing the parties, by an order dated 31.5.2005, the Deputy Commissione r, Kamrup (Rural), recorded a finding that the respondent No. 8 does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community but only belongs to ’Sarania Kachari’ Community and on the basis of such finding, Scheduled Tribe Certificate granted to the respon dent No. 8 on 11.11.90 was declared to be invalid and was cancelled. This prompt ed the present respondent No. 8 to file a writ petition which was numbered as WP (C) 4459/2005. This Court by a judgment and order dated 14.3.2008 directed the D eputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) to once again consider the matter afresh afte r hearing also the representatives of the Tribal Sangha, who had earlier issued a letter dated 20.2.2002 in support of the respondent No. 8. 9. The present respondent No. 8, thereafter, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2258/08 challenging the order dated 26.5.2008 rejecting her clai m of belonging to Scheduled Tribe by holding that she is a member of the ’Sarani a Kachari’ community. 10. After considering the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court recorded the finding that the order dated 26.5.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner was vitiated inasmuch as no hearing w as afforded to the present respondent No. 8 and accordingly, the same was interf ered with by judgment and order dated 6.6.2009. It would appear that the learned State counsel had placed a notification dated 18.05.2009 issued by the Commissi oner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backwar d Classes Department before the Court to show that in terms of the directions co ntained in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal De velopment and Others, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241, the Government of Assam had constituted a State Level Scrutiny Committee, for short, Committee. The views of the learned counsel for the parties was sought to determine as to whether they would agree for scrutiny of the social status of the respondent No. 8 by the Com mittee which was constituted by the Government in terms of the order of the Supr eme Court in Madhuri Patil(supra). As all the counsel including the counsel for the writ petitioner herein responded by submitting that the scrutiny and conside ration should be done by the aforesaid Committee as notified by the State Govern ment on 18.5.2009 instead of by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), this Co urt by the said judgment and Order directed the Committee to verify the claim o f the respondent No. 8 as to whether she is a person belonging to the Rabha comm unity and is entitled to Scheduled Tribe (Plains) status to merit selection for the LPG dealership in question. 11. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 9.6.200 9 in WP(C) 2258/2008, the Committee, after spot verification and scrutiny of rel evant materials and after recording statements of different organizations and pe rsons and also the letter dated 10.9.2009 submitted by the present petitioner, b y a report dated 29.10.2009 opined that the respondent No. 8 actually belongs to Rabha community and that the original caste certificate issued by the Deputy Co mmissioner, Kamrup on 11.11.1990 was correct and genuine and, therefore, directe d the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to review his earlier cancellation order dated 31.5.2005 and to issue a fresh caste certificate in favour of the respondent No . 8 as a member of Scheduled Tribe belonging to Rabha Community. 12. Against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh caste certificate in terms of his order dated 1.4.2010, the respondent No. 8 ag ain approached this Court by filing WP(C) 2250/2010. This Court, by an order dat ed 20.07.2010, considering that there is no challenge to the report of the Commi ttee, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), to issue necessary Sched uled Tribe Certificate to the respondent No. 8 in terms of the adjudication made by the Committee. This order was carried in appeal by All Assam Tribal Sangha, the respondent No. 7 in the present petition, in Writ Appeal No. 310/2010. The w rit appellate court, finding no merit, by an order dated 17.09.2010, dismissed t he appeal. 13. The present petitioner was not a party either in WP(C) 2250/2010 or in the Writ Appeal No. 310/2010. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2010, the certificate has since been issued to her. 14. The present writ petition has now been instituted by the writ pe titioner on 30.9.2010, almost eleven months after the decision of the Committee. Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, addresses this Court only wit h regard to the constitution of the Committee. He submits that the constitution of the Committee is not in terms of the constitution as directed by the Apex Cou rt in Madhuri Patil(supra). The learned counsel draws attention of this Court to paragraph 13(4) of the aforesaid judgment and submits that the composition of t he Committee which decided the case of the respondent No. 8 would go to show tha t there was no Research Officer, who had intimate knowledge in identifying tribe s, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities and, t herefore, the decision taken by the Committee, is, ex facie, without any authori ty of law. The learned counsel also submits that no further appeal lies against the order of a learned Single Judge to the Division Bench in view of the decisio n in Madhuri Patil(supra) but the order of the learned Single Judge would be sub ject to special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and, theref ore, this Court should not be influenced by the judgment and order dated 17.9.20 10 passed in Writ Appeal No. 310/2010. 15. In order to dispel a doubt, a query was put by this Court to Mr. Singh to ascertain as to whether he is not assailing the finding of the Committ ee on merits. The learned counsel, in response, made it clear that he is not add ressing this Court on the findings recorded by the Committee, and, therefore, he had confined his arguments only on the constitution of the committee. 16. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 8, s ubmits that going by the spate of litigations, it is inconceivable that the writ petitioner was not aware of the decision taken by the Committee on 22.10.2009, as has been sought to be made out in this proceeding as a justification for dela yed approach to this Court. The learned Senior counsel submits that the material s on record would disclose that on some ground or the other, litigation is sough t to be kept alive to frustrate the claim of the respondent no. 8 for allotment of the dealership in question and this is demonstrated by the fact that the pres ent foray to this Court was made only after adjudication was made by this Court in the Writ Appeal noticed hereinabove. The contention of Mr. N. Dutta is that n o such plea with regard to the constitution of the Committee was taken, either b efore this court in WP(C) 2258/2008, where the petitioner consented to a scrutin y by the Committee which was constituted by the notification dated 18.05.2009 or before the Committee where the petitioner participated by submitting a letter d ated 10.09.2009 and, as such, this plea cannot be entertained at this stage, rai sed for the first time in this petition. He further submits that even otherwise, there is no merit in the argument canvassed that the Committee was not constitu ted in terms of Madhuri Patil(supra). 17. Mr. R.K. Bora, learned counsel, appearing for the State respond ents, has submitted that a large number of cases have been decided by the Commit tee and the constitution of the Committee is not challenged in any of such proce edings. 18. Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos . 4, 5 and 6, submits that sooner the proceedings come to an end, the better for them, so that they can allot the dealership to the successful candidate. 19. In view of the categorical submission and assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that merit of the decision is not challenged, only qu estion to be decided by this Court is with regard to the validity of the constit ution of the Committee. 20. In Madhuri Patil(supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 13(13) laid down as follows : 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as e xpeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its pr ocedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Sin gle Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division B ench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 21. Therefore, Mr. Singh is right in contending that in terms of the judgment in Madhuri Patil(supra), no writ appeal lies against the decision of t he Single Judge and such decision will be only subject to special leave under Ar ticle 136 of the Constitution of India. 22. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote hereinbelow pa ragraph 13(4) of Madhuri Patil(supra) : 13 (4) All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned., (II) the Director, Social Wel fare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the veri fication and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Sche duled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 23. The committee that decided the fate of respondent No. 8 had fou r members in the form of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Welfare of Pl ain Tribes & Backward Classes, Director, Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backward Clas ses, Director, Welfare of Scheduled Caste and Director, Assam Scheduled Caste an d Scheduled Tribe Research Institute. 24. A perusal of the judgment and, more particularly, paragraph 13(4) of Madhuri Patil(supra), would go to show that the Apex Court had directed that in the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer, who has intimate knowledg e in identifying tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tri bal communities is required to be a member. There is no pleading in the writ pet ition that the Director of Assam Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Research In stitute, which, as the name suggests, is a Research Institute, does not possess the requisite qualification of the Research Officer. What is sought to be emphas ized by the Apex Court is the intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, trib al communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. In a Researc h Institute, the Director is at the top of the hierarchy and Research Officer wo uld be figuring below the Director in the pyramid. Therefore, it is the consider ed opinion of the Court that the designation Research Officer may not be a det erminative factor of the valid constitution of a committee and a committee would be construed to be duly constituted if the committee consists of a person who i s well versed, though having a different designation. In the absence of any atta ck questioning the credentials of the Director as not having intimate and specif ic knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups o f tribes or tribal communities or relating to the tribal customs, in the conside red opinion of the Court, the belated stand taken by the petitioner in this proc eeding, fails. 25. There is another facet of the case. The writ petitioner at no po int of time before filing of the instant writ petition had questioned the jurisd iction of the Committee to go into the question of social status of the responde nt No. 8 on the ground that it was not properly constituted. The petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Committee voluntarily before this Court wit hout any demur in WP(C) 2258/2008 and had also taken part before the Committee. The Apex Court in Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta (supra), had occasion to deal with a similar situation. The Apex Court held that the writ petitioner, who had contended that the Tribunal which had heard and disposed of his appeal was impr operly constituted, ought to have taken the objection at the initial stage of he aring of the appeal before the Tribunal and if such a stand was taken, the posit ion could have been rectified. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court had al lowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court which had allow ed the writ petition by accepting the plea of the writ petitioner that the Tribu nal was not properly constituted. As has been noted earlier, protracted litigat ions have spread over nearly a decade. The petitioner, it would appear, had take n a chance before the Committee and only after the decision had gone against him in the writ appeal filed by the Tribal Sangha, which, it appears, espoused the cause of the petitioner at that point of time, he had filed this writ applicatio n with this new found plea. 26. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the opi nion that no case is made out for interference and accordingly, the writ petitio n is dismissed. No costs.