"^,-f 5^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Writ Petitjon No, 378 of 2005 PETITiONER Rajesh Kumar, S/o Amar Say, Aged about 37 years, Caste ST (Kanwar), ResidenS of Baikuntha, District - KoreafCG). Versus RESPONDENTS 4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Throd'gh Senior Divisional Retail Sales Blanager, Indian Oii Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, V!P Road, P.0. Ravigram, Telibandha, District Raipur (CG). Dealer Seiection Committee, Indian 011 Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil' Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, VIP Road, P.0. Ravigram, Telibandha, District Raipur (CG). Senior Divisionai Retail Sales Manager, tndian Oil Cprporation Ltd., Indian 011 Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, VIP Road, P.0. Ravigram, Telibandha, District Raipur (CG). Ku. Bobby Panika, D/o Bariya Panika, Aged about 30 years, R/o viilage Kothi, Tashil Kotma, District Anuppur (MP). Present: Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. Kinger,counsel for respondents No.1 and 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28tn August, 2006) In this writ petition the allotment of retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at Baikunthpur in favour of the fourth respondent has been assaiied. The only ground of attack is that ths subject outlet was meant for persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe whereas it has been liegaliy allotted to the fourth respondent who does not belong to Pathak Scheduied Tribe, but, belongs to 'Panika' caste, which is not a Scheduled Tribe. The writ petition is opposed by the official respondents and fourth respondent by filing returns. In the return filed by the respondents No.1 and 3, it is asserted that the fourth respondent belongs to Scheduied Tribe. No rejoinder has been fited by the petitloner. -Be that as it may, what is placed before the Court with regard to the caste status of the fourth respondent is nothing but sworn assertion and sworn denial and v except these two, there is nothing to Shpw that the fourth respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. The other reason which heavily weighed with the Court not to interfere in the matter is the fact that in order to seiectsuitable candidate for allotment retail outlet dealership, the concerned authority conducted interview on 6-10-2003 as well as on 17-1-2004. On both the occasions, the petitioner and the fourth respondent appeared for the interview. At no point of time, the petitioner did make any grievance before the seiecting authority about the caste status of thefourth respondent. The Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner soiely on the basis of his self-serving statement. Nothing is placed before the Court by the petitioner to show that the fourth respondent does not belong to Scheduied Tribe. Above all, when caste status of a person is disputed, such a question cannot properly be deait with or decided in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without permitting the parties to !ead evidence and tender them for cross examination by each other. Looking from any angle, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice