HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3727 (£2007 Anurag Lall, S/o Shri R.M.Lal, aged about 43 Years, R/o. Under Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Marmalaya, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Depatunent of Health, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Uccha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti (in the matter of SC/ST Caste Certiflcate) through —— Secretary, PL Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalayau Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of General Administration, D.K.S Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C G ) Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, Dislx; Bilaspur (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER ’ Present: Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. ; -—-...—«—-~-- Shm' Y.S.Thaknr, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. 0RDhR The petitioner, by this petition,is not challenging any particular order‘but' seeks a writ ofmandamus against the respondent no. 2 to supply a copy of the report ofthe respondent no. 4. The petitioner claims to be a member of tribal community known as “Gon " ®ly notified as Scheduled Tribe under the provisions of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) 1950, issued by the President of India in exercise of its power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India vide notiiication bearing no. SRO 510 dated 6.9.1950. :1. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. (Passed on day of July, 2007) " . 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears that the dispute with regard to the caste of the petitioner is pending consideration before the Caste Scrutiny Committee i.e. the respondent No. 2. In the process, the investigation was. made through the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 has submitted its report. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ for supply ofa copy of report submitted by the respondent No. 4. The Caste Serutiny Committee is under an obligation, in View of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in'the matter of Kumariv’Madhnrl Patil and another v. Add]. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others.‘ and in the ease of State of Maharashtra & others Vs. Ravi Prakash Balmlalsingh Parmar & Anrz, to supply relevant documents includingthe report ofthe Superintendent of Police. No order has been passed‘by the respondent No: 2. Thus, no cause of action has yet arisen. 4. The petition is premature in absence of any cause of action. Thus, this petition cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate stepsi if so advised. a ‘ Sd/— i ‘ Satish K.Agnihotri Judge p l. (1994) 6 SCC 241 2. 2006 AIR SCW 6093