!!!!4f|i-l-:: 4 fVt IN THE HIOH CQURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASFUR a' fc y"s~» Writ Petitioa No?-S.G8/2005 -/ ^ PETITIONER \.o^^^> ^ Smt. Ganga Goyal, 'o Shri Eam Krislnia Goyal, ;ett about 55 il'ears, Occupation- Service, workiag as Upper Diwision. Teacher (UDT) R/ o C.I o Lata Goyal, Hostal .<»'' ^2^;?"/ wi p&y-^-""' age ^y ^"" ^,.-'3 ^" -^.--T ^cCy r,u ^-"'°.1 a^ ^ -' P£^-"^*t- . . ^t.\o'S"^,T%_ Superintendent; Naveen Post ^\^vv^t^-ff''J'r _".-...... .„ . , Metric Girls Aadivasi Hostel, G^; Urtiversity Campus, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS ^^^s^; State ofChhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Tribal Wetfare Dspartnient, Mantralaya, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). State ofChhattisgarh, Throu^i the Secretai-y; General Adm.imstrati.on Department, Mantralaya, Shastri Chowk, Raipur (C.G.}. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Collectorate Office, Raipur(C.G,), The Chairman, High Power Screerung Commlttee for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ART'ICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NMTJRE OF MAtTOAMUS, PROHIBITION. CERTIORA.RI ETC.OR ANY OTH@E DIRECTIOH OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTEK. Details offh.e petition. 4. lf!t±ti£si@3?"'3^r t &•ft' HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.2508 QF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Ganga Goyal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, PanS.1 Lawyer for the State. Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate foi^'the intervener. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 27th day ofjuly, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Scheduled Tribe for being member • of Mannewar community and further prays that the matter may be remitted back to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") for taking appropriate decision, in respect of the social status of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was a permanent resident of Jabalpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he died on 5-10-1950. The petitioner being a Mannewar was issued a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate by the Executive Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Durg, on 6-12-1980 (Annexure - P/1). After lapse of more than two decades, vide letter dated 16-6-2004 (Annexure - P/10) the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee for verification of the social status of the petitioner on 26-6-2004. In compliance of the said letter, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted her reply vide Annexure - P/11. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 24-1-2005 (Annexure - P/12) was passed by the Committee holding that the petitipner is not a member of Scheduled Tribe community —afldr6commending to take action against the petitioner. Thus, this 'petition. 3. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is resident of Bilaspur and has ' obtained the social status certificate from Durg, which according to the learned counsel is contrary to clause 3 of the memo dated ff "S.-T^-lo :|^^.iE".ftl.^g'^ "°"'»*».. |g ,^2-3-1977 issuedby.theUnGlej-'SecretsirytotheGpvemmeritQf India, IVIinistry 8f Home Affairs. 'Copy of said memp is taken on record. The petitioner faited to produce the documents showing that her ancestors were residing in the State of Chhattisgarh prior t<3 1950. Infact, afterdueenquiryitisfoundthatthe petitioner does not belong to State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, she is not entitled to get the benefits under the Scheduled Tribecategory. Thus, the petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the partigs, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. It is evident that the petitioner has fa'ded to prove her case before the Committee beyond all reasonable-doubts. After affording an opportunity of Tiearing and after receipt of the reply from the petitioner the impugned order was passed. Even before passing the impugned order, according to the learned State counsel, due enquiry was conducted to ascertain the social status of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to prove that asto how she obtained the caste certificate from Durg when she is residing at Bilaspur at that relevant point of time. 6. The Government of India in its memo dated 22-3-1977 specifically provided that before issuing the social status certificate in respect of a particular person proper verification based primarily on revenue records and if need be, through reliable enquiries is necessary, but in the case on hand the same has not been followed by the Durg district authorities in spite of the fact that the memo was issued by the Government of India in the year 1977 whereas the social status certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1980. The impugned order passed by the Committee is just and proper. Para 3 ofthe memo dated 22/03/1977 reads as under: "3. It is to ensure the veracity qf this permanent residence of a person and that of caste/tribe to which he claims to belong that the Govemment of India has made a special provision in the proforma prescribed for the issue of such cerfificate. In order that the certificates are issued to the deserving persons, it is necessary that proper verification based phmarily on revenue records and if needbe, through reliable enquiries, in made befqre such certificates are issued. As it is only the Revenue Authorities who, besides having access to the relevant revenue records, are in a position to make reliable enquiries. Govemment of Ind'ta insists upon the production of certificates 7. Gowri from such authorities only. In order to be competent to issue such certificates, therefore, the authority mentioned in the Government of India (Department of Personnei and Adininistrative Reforms) Letter No. 13/2/74/Est (SCT) dated the 5 August 1975 (copy enclosed). Should be the one concemed with the looality in which the person applying for the certificate has his place of permanent abode at the time of the notification of the relevant Presidential order. Thus, the Revenue Authority of one District would not be compe(ent to issue such a certificate in respec(-of persons belonging to another district. Nor can such an authority of one State/Union Tenitory issue such certificates in respect of persons vi/hose place ofpermanenf residence at the. time of the notification of a particular Presidential order. has been in a different State/Union Territory. In the case of persons born after the date of notification of the relevant Presidential Order, the pfece of resi'dence for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduted Tribe sfafus, ;s the piace of permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order uncfer which they claim to belong to such a caste/tribe." The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & another , observed as under; "12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi- judicial body. It has been setup for a specific purpose. It serves social and constitutional purposes. It is constituted to prevent fraud on the Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admi'ssion of documentary evidence only. It may out of necessity have to take oral evidence." Thus, in view of the above, 1 do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Committee. It is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Ag"i'!io'cn Judge (2007) 1 SCC 80 ' ^ ^^"tfswn