T ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH €> W.P. N0.^'(03 OF 2001 Petitioners ..;° ^ \ ^•^ ..ra;L/-:-^--"'. .-ea ^:":5^^ .^'^ .^-' f^fi Narayan Prasad Sui S/o Pradban Sai Thoria bv Caste Agcd about 51 years Upper Division Teucher R/o Village Tiieeda Tahsil; Pathaigaon Distt. Jashpiir(C.Q.) /c^ Dr. Prcmciidra Kaxuai S/o Naravan Pd. Sai Aged about 27 years Thoria bv Casie R/o Village Tilgeda' 'l'alisil: Pathalgaon Disll. Jashpur(C.G.) VERSUS •I R-espondents 1. ^"' State of Chhattisgarh Througii its Secreiary Deptt. ofRevenue D.K.S. Mantralava Raipur(C.G.) ^^ .:^'^\ i ^^/, ^\ .^ Collector-Cum- E^istnct Magistrate, Jashpur(CO) ^ ® 3. 4. Sub-Divisiona! Otficer (Revenue hcum-Sub- Divisional Magistrate Distt. Jashpur(C(}) The Officer-In-cliarge Police Station'PatliaJgaon Distt.Jashpurt CGl." ^"' ^mn PETITION LINDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CUNSTITUTIQ1M OE INUiA ¥ORISSUANCE OF APPRQPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION TION OR. DIP.ECTIONS ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2509 of 2001 Petitioners Narayau Prasad Sai & aaofher Versus Respoudents State of Chhattisgarh 85 ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Shri Saurabh Sharma/Advocate for fhe petltioners. Shri P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Loiwyer for the respondents. O RD B R (Orall (Passed on fhis 21st day ofOctober, 2009) Heard. The chaUenge ia this petition is to the order dated 27.11,1999 (Annexure P/8), whereby fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpur has found fhat the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Accordiagly, by letter dated 3/4.11.2000 (Annexure P/9) fhe Additional District Magistrate, Jashpur directed the Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Patfhalgaon to lodge F.I.R, agaiast the petitioner aad take appropriate steps. This C/ourt on 5.12.2001 stayed the effect aad operation oftiie above ioipugned orders. It appears tliat the aufhorities have taken steps agaiast the petitioner ou tlie basis of the report submitted by fhe Sub Divisional OflScer (Revenue), Jashpur. The petitioner had already obtamed caste certificate from Tahsildar, Patfhalgaou. It is weU setfled that the Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue) is not competent to make aa enquiry m fhe Ught of flie observations made by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commr. Tribunal Developmeat1 and State of Maharashtra aad others Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulal Sing Parmar2. Ifthere is aiiy dispute with regard to fhe social status of a persou, fhe 1 AIR 1995 SC 94) 2 2007(1) SCC40 ^^s^> 6. Thakur <-. 2— @> High Power Scrutiny Coinniittee alone is coiapetent to decide such dispute. Adnuttedly, tlie dispute was not referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiay Coniinittee and fhe Additional District Magistrate on fhe basis of fhe report subsiiitted by fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jashpur, has directed lodgiag of F.I.R. aad taknig appropriate steps again.st fhe petitioner ni his service career. Haviag heard leamed counsel appearmg for fhe parties aiid haviag perused the docunients appended thereto, the irapugned orders appears to be vitiated on account of the fact that the needfal has not been done ia accordaace witli fhe law as laid down by fhe Supreme Court ia Madhuri Patil (supra) aad Ravi Prakash Babulal Sisigh Parmar (supra). The petition is accorduigly aUowed, The ioipugned order dated 27.11.1999 (Annexurc P/8) and the letter dated 3/4.11.2000 (Annexure P/9) are quashed. No order asto costs. On the request of learaed counsel appeari&g for fhe respondents/State, Uberty is reserved to the respondeuts/State to refer the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, tf so advised, for examirdng the inatter m. accordaiice with law, as enunciated by fhe Suprerae Court in various cases aad to pass appropriate order withia fhe thne limit prescribed by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge