'^' -^ A, CD w^ ^' v^ IN 03iE HIGH 03[JRT OP JUDIGAIURS; AT BILASPUR (C.0.5 WRIT PETITION N0. J-SO^f /2 002 PSTITOONER S RESPONDENSS Mahipal Prasad Biyar .aged abcat 33 years s/o Nanhuram Occapation -Lectarer^ Government Higher ^econdary School^ Gourella Tah, Pendraroad Distt^ Bilasour resi.'dent of village Nagpura^ P»0* Jawalpixr Tah<» Janjgir Qistt» Janjgir- ahampa (C^Q,) A N O . <Ihe'State of Chhattisgarh Airough the S@cretary Oepartment y^- ^^"'^-^ ^^tv'- .v-l .,-^ v^ .^^ ^s?' of Anusuchit jafci/Anusuchit Janjati Kalyan Vibhag^ D*K»S<. Building Kaip^^ (0.0») 2} Sub Divisional Officer, J§njgir Dist/ Janjgir Champa (C<»G<.) Gommissioner - Scheduled Gaste/ Scheduled Tribe, other baokward comnunity and minority eommunity KaXyan Vibhag^ Raipur (G,G<) Anusuchit Janjati Praman Patra Uche Stariya Samiti^ Raipur (C^G»$ 5) Sub-Divisional Officer-Police, janjgir Dist. jjenjgir-Ghampa (C,G») WRIT PETITION UNDERARmICL.SS 226/227 OF 'ms CONSTIIUTION OP INDIA. ^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT^ILASPUR WRIT N0.1504 OF Petltioner IVIahipa! Prasad Biyar Versus ^: Respondents Tne State of Chhattisgam& Others WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226/227 OF THE CQNST!TUT!ON OF INpiA (SB: Hon'Me Mr. K. Agnihotri, J.l Presentl- Smt. Renu Koc.har, Advocate for the petitjoner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. (Passed on 05th day of August, 2010) 1. The petitioner, by this petjtion, seeks a writ impugnjng tsie notice dated 8/7/2002 (Annexure P-1), order dated 26/6/2002 (Annexure P-2), 7/6/2002 (Annexure P-3) and 30/8/2000 (Annexure P-6). 2. The brief facts in nutshei! are that, the petitioner ciaims to be a member of Biyar, scheduie tribe community. The petitioner vtfas issued a caste certificate on 9/7/1985 by the Tahsildar Janjgir, Dlstrict Bilaspur. The said certificate was sent for verificatlon to the Scheduje Caste Scheduie Tribe High Power Caste Scrutlny Commjttee (in short "the Committee''). The Committee reiying on report dated 30/8/2000 (Annexure P-6) held that the petltioner did not belong to Schedule Tribe. 3. The ieaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 7/6/2002 (Annexure P-3) is contrary to ths directlons made by the Supreme ^Court in Kumari'Madhun Patii & V^BS ^ \V\A AnQther v. Add!. CommissiQner, Tiibal DevelQpment & Others'. Smt. Kochar further submits that the Committee was constituted on 14/2/2001; pursuant to the direction made in Kuman Pati! (supra). Thus, there was no occasion to have a vigilance ceil and get the enquiry done by the vigilance ceil as suggested and directed by the Supreme Court. Relying on a report submitted by Sub Divisionai Ot'ficer (Police), the Committee has proceeded and heid that the petitioner did not beiong to schedule tribe community. 4. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsei for the State submits that though the inspectiOii was not done by vigilance celi as contempiated under sub-para 5 of para 13 in Kumari Madhuri Patii (supra). However, the same was done by the S.D.O.(Poiice) in the sa.me manner by going t.o the particular. piace and making ali enquiries as required. Thus, the report ot' S.D.0. (Poiice) cannot be thrown away v^hen the opportunity of hearing was afforded to ttie petltloner to respond to the said report. Hovvever, if it is not done in accordance with the guideiines as observed in para 13 (5) by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuh PatU (supra), the State authorities may be granted iiberty to make inspection once again through vigllance ceii and after affording an opportunsty of hearing to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with iaw. 5. Havlng regard to the facts situation of the case, when the Committee has relied on.the report, which was obtained prior to the date of constitutlon of the Committee; wjthout golng into the merits- of the case, the order is ^quashed. for non-compliance of the (1994)63cc241 WSM ••^"^"-;,. -•^"^ /•& "^. f:y ^^^^'^ ashok 3 guideiines as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patii (supra). 6. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, iiberty is reserved to the Commlttee to examine the matter afresh for verifjcation of socia! status of the petitloner in accordance with the guidellnes jaid down bythe Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and further expiained in Dlrector of Tribal WBifare, Government ofAndhra Pradesh v. Lavetj Giri & Anothe^. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 7/6/2002 (Annexure P-3) and aii consequeritiai orders are quashed. ' . 8.. tn the result, the writ petition is ailowedi wltS-i the above stated iiberty.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (1995) ^ SCC 32