& x PETITIONER: (c.G.) C/éz 1 “37¢ smart BENCH GD IN THE I-TIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASI’UR w.P. s Nogg? 20 Dinesh Mandavi, ’S/o Shri D.S. Mandavi, Aged about 26 years, R/o PWDK Colony, H-8, Kondagaon, fDistrict — Bastar (c.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, RESPONDENT: Director, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan State of Chhattisgarh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Premises Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank through General Manager (Administration) Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) — 492001 VERSUS 10 D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through the PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONsTITUTION 01: INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROP‘RIATE WRITs OF 'MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABEEWRITS AND DIRECTIONs.- ‘ ‘ I HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No 587 of2010 PETITIONER : Dinesh Mandavi. i . VERsUS \ L RESPONDENTS : State of Chhams‘gaxh & Others I ! l PETITIbN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shn' Satish K Agnmotri, J. Present“ $hr1 Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. e 1 Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy A.G. for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15a; day of February, 2010) With the consent of le'arhe'd counsel appearing for the parties, the matter, is heard fmally. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application to the respondent No. '2 i.e. Caste Celtificatei Scrutiny Committee, (for shott', ‘the Committee’) on 25.11.2009 for: verification of his caste certificate. As per direction of the Supreme: i Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil & another v. AddZ. Commiskioner, Tribal Devebpment & Othersl, in sub para 9 of para 13, two months time has'i been specified for completing the proceedings. However, till date; no ‘ order has been passed on the application made by the petitioner. Shn' Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits thatthough a copy of the application has not been annexed to a the petitioner, thus, it is difficult to verify-asto whether the application in proper format has been made to the Committee or not. In the event, ‘ 1 (1994)'6 scc 241 = @ a i th‘e petitioner has made any application in the proper format, the Committee shall consider and decide his case in accordancewith the directions given by the Supreme Court 1n Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). The directions issued by the Supreme C(iurt in para 13 of Ku. Maahuri (supra) has been reiterated withtapproval in several decisions 1 x n x ‘ t 1 t ‘ t Pati . v l subsequently. In GM Indian Bank v. RiRani & another}, the Supreme ‘ Court observed as under: 2 rr 2008(1) SC 88 :I’ x 6...‘In View ofthe foregoing discussions it cannot be said. that the directions given inithe. case of . I Kumari 'Madhuri Patil (supra) were simply v guidelines. In our View, the law laid down in the , _ case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated times without number not only by 2- v Judge Benches but even 3-Judge Bench of this Court”. In View ofthe above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2, that in the event, the petitioner has made an J application in proper format, as aforestated, the same may be considered and decided in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) within a period of two months dom 3 the date ofreceipt of a copy ofthis order.