IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15645 of 2008 Srimati Urmila Devi W/o Gori Shankar Lal, Resident of Mohalla Rauza, P.O. Ara Chawk,Ward No.28, P.S., Ara, District Bhojpur. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate Bhojpur at Ara, P.S. Ara, District Bhojpur 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur at Ara. 4. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer Sadar Ara 6. The Anchal Adhikari Sadar Ara ……..Respondents. For the petitioner : M/s Chandrashekhar, Sr. Advocate with Pankaj Kumar Sinha and Dharemendra Kr. Paswan, Advocates. For the State : M/s Md. Fazal Rahman G.P.-6 and Md. Baidullah, Asstt.GP.6 ----------- 03/ 15.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure-10) by which the learned District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara cancelled the Caste Certificate sl.no.3792 dated 24.04.2007 (Annexur-12 to the supplementary affidavit) issued by Anchal Adhikari, Ara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid impugned order has been passed without any material against the petitioner and even the enquiry report of Sub- Divisional Officer, Ara dated 26.11.2007 on the basis of which the said order has been passed does not reveal any concrete material against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 respondents vehemently challenges the claim of the petitioner and states that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara after full-fledged enquiry made by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara, who in his report dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent nos.2 and 6) specifically mentioned that he had taken all steps for verification, whereafter he had found the election against the petitioner to be correct. 4. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that there was an earlier report in this regard which was rejected whereafter another report was called from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara who according to his report went to the house of the petitioner and adjacent houses where no one said that the petitioner did not belong to Sinduria Caste rather all of them clearly stated that the petitioner as well as her father-in-law were having the occupation of selling Sindur, etc. whereas the petitioner stated that she and her father-in-law all belonged to Sinduria Caste. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara had also noted that there was some cutting in the Caste Certificate as in place of Caste earlier Sinuria was mentioned but by cutting it Caste Sinduria was mentioned. However he admitted that there was no Caste of the name of Sinuria, rather the only Caste was Sinduria which belonged to the extremely backward class. From the report, it is also apparent that the Enquiry Officer also contacted Revenue 3 Karamchari at whose instance the Caste Certificate was issued to the petitioner but since long time had lapsed, he did not remember the same. Moreover, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Collector ever tried to contact Anchal Adhikari who had issued the Caste Certificate to the petitioner. From the said report of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara it is also apparent that he had submitted his report only on prima facie basis and hence he had requested the District Magistrate to get an appropriate enquiry made by a higher officer. 5. It is also apparent that the only basis of the allegation was the Chakbandi Khatiyan prepared by the Consolidation Authorities in which the caste of the petitioner’s father was shown as Kayasth due to which enquiry was made by the said Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ara from the Consolidation Officer who had supported the said entries but no effort had been made to see the correctness of the same on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Anchal Adhikari. Furthermore, in view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case it was incumbent upon the authorities to examine the officer granting Caste Certificate before cancelling the said Caste Certificate. The non- examination of the said officer vitiates the entire proceeding. 6. Furthermore, in support of his claim the petitioner has produced apart from the Caste Certificate, several documents including sale deed dated 25.03.1966 which was executed by owner of the property sold in favour of the mother-in-law of the 4 petitioner in which her caste was shown as Sinduria as well as the Caste Certificate issued by Block Development Officer, Dawath (Rohtas) in favour of the uncle of the petitioner who is full brother of the petitioner’s father showing him to be Sinduria by caste. 7. In the said facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara cannot be sustained in law as it has been passed without considering the relevant materials and has been passed on the basis of a report which is vague and not final according to the Enquiry Officer himself. Accordingly, the said order is quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed. However, the authorities will be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding with respect to the Caste Certificate of the petitioner if some valid material comes before them. It goes without saying that such proceeding should be initiated after giving due notice to the petitioner. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )