BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (0 No. ^2-t-l S /2011 PETITIONER ^^? v^^ o/ „"< ^"".^' ..-•''' <^y/ "^^•••" VERSUS »' RESPONDENTS ^ 1) 2) 3) Susheel Kumar Indurkar S/o- Shri Tekchand Indurkar, Aged about 31 years, R/o.- C- 4, New Block, University Campus, Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. State Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through Director, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, University Campus Raipur District Raipur Sub Divisional Officer, Dongargarh, Distict- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4) Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Through Registrar, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. S PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG_ARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONJCj N0.2243 OF 2011 Susheel Kumar Indurkar RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed on this 5th day of May, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No.2 & 3 to issue grant of verified caste certificate and permanent caste certificate to the petitioner. 3. The prayer is vague. What is to be issued, whether verified caste certificate and/or permanent caste certificate ? It is not explained properly. There is a contemplation of temporary certificate or permanent certificate. The petitioner has made an application dated 11-4-2011 (Annexure -.P/5) to the Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Office, Dongargarh, for grant of permanent caste certificate. At the same time, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court on 26-4-2011 on the allegation that if the direction is not issued, the respondent authorities will not grant the caste certificate. 4. The grounds raised by the petitioner are baseless, as it has not been substantiated by any document or by any other document wherein there is a reference not to grantjCertificate. The officers are entitled to reasonable time to consider and pass the order. Thus, no direction of this nature can be issued to the officers. However, it expected that if an application is pending, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and as per the time fixed by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Thbal Development and Others and by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria V. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected .matters. „._ 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sattsh K. Agnihotri Judge ' (1994)68cc241 2WP(S)No.33380F2007 %ov5? ^