^a t?'° 0 ® IN THE OF AT C,G. N0.,^__,2^54:._.ffl004 2'26/2.2.7 of t.iie of ^^ ^,.;'^',."' ^y^" .••••':<b<^' ^y^"' ^^y" ^^"" ^" S/o Ma€lh3%?i3jTi, abo'at. 33 years, PJo Village Up-Tahsil (C.G.) of tSie Secret.317 Depaitiiient of Schedule Tribe aiid Scheduled Caste, D.K.S. Biiawai, Raipur, C.G. ^T. c^Ti 2) CoUector, (C.G.) 3) Siib Dhdsioiial Officer, Revesiue Dh-aiiilari, Distt. Dhaiiitari, C.G. ^-,^^, ^^ . k^ ^^^^ ^^fcf^ 4) Tahsildar, Distt , ^^^^^v^ ' Dhsintari, C.G. ~L..^i^^ ^^^1^\ ^- r---^'K-C^l^Luumon of In(31a. thio"gb me : Secretary ^^->^'v Mii'dsm7 of 3Ad ,Co^ •©^ ^ ^.^.:\ »t^ ]/ Bhawsn, New DeM. ©w^»y^-®° ,OF FOR AND IC-22 3:fT^?T'^T k^ 3T[^I 5fr)^i<=^ <-i[^Ct .^- ~y^r -41^11^, ^xil^^i^ fa^i^y 3TTi[?T '^^K. v^,p. M^:.<L6^^ |2An5T-^ "|--^ 200 ^W^\{ 9b^l<^ '^re-^T' -377^1'^<TT8^ ^ftn SB : Hon<ttle Shri Manmdra Mohan St 01-04-2011 Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsel for tl} Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advc|( Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/resp<| Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for resp|ondent Heard. This petition has been filed by dated 15-12-2003 (Annexure P-10) pas^ which, his application for issuance of The revision preferred by the petitione|r order passed by the Additional Tahsilcjar, order dated 26-07-2004 (Annexure P-1] maintainable. jthe petitioner aggrieved by order ^ed by the Additional Tahsildar, by cjaste certificate has been rejected. before the Collector against the cjar, has also been dismissed vide Ip) holding that no such revision is Brief facts of the case as stated ir belongs to Mahar (t(TT?N") caste which is State of Chhattisgarh. According to the to issuance of caste certificate in that rec orlder Learned counsel forthe petitionerjsubmits was moved by the petitioner before the caste certificate, the Tahsildar vide its the application observing that in various| has been written as Maahara ("^IT^NT") petitioner is not entitled to issuance of' cbl^fd<Li1"l 'RTR^f ^ fecst <P=1<^1< ^ 3tf;<R 3TT^?T nvastava, J~ ie petitioner. cate General along with Shri S. K. )ndents No.1 to4. : No.5. the petition, are that the petitioner notified in the Scheduled Caste of petitioner, the petitioner is entitled ard. that though an application Additional Tahsildar for issuance of dated 15-12-2003 has rejected |certificates, caste ofthe petitioner Mahra C"fT^r'), and therefore, the certificate of Mahar ('"^^"). calste [^ •?fe7r :^^^^"-%. F j ^i^h S t '•:z}^y' ^j.. ^, ^"" .^-HC-22 '^v'..^ ..^y ^n^i'^r f^TW^TT^T $ti4-licb '(-if^^l "y^t ^\\^w^, ^Ti1<44i(o, f®icni^^< 3ffi^r xra^ W.(?, N^ Z£°)^^m5^ ^.................................^...^ ,^ ^(*<^l9b^lcb 'f^ST' 3TT^T^<TTW?rf^T ^ Learned counsel for the petitii the Tahsitdar is highly illegal and im that he belongs to Mahar ("^R") cc Tahsildar, a certificate was issued b; Megha, where the petitioner was st belongs to Mahar ("^R^R") caste. E wrongly and arbitrarily rejected. He| enquiry was made nor the entire mc oral evidence was considered by the ^ner argued that the order passed by im|3roper as the petitioner had claimed ste and in the enquiry made by the the Head Master of Middle School, t^idying in class-VI that the petitioner /en then, the application has been further submits that neither proper Iterial placed on record in the form of 'ahsildar. On the other hand, learned submission of application for grant o made and the Tahsildar found tha1 caste of the petitioner has been mer ("TT^T'), and therefore, no certificate to the petitioner. It appears that the application| raising doubt with regard to petition( view of the certain documents whicl as Maahara ("^KT') ZTT Mahra ("T^T| requires verification. In view of the decisioh of the | Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl\ AIR 1995 SC 94, the caste verificat <^i<Ljf<n4i'i 'HTR^ff ^ fe^ <r^^i< ^T 3rrf^R ^3Ti^r State counsel submitted that upon caste certificate, proper enquiry was in various records and documents,. tioned as Maahara ("'ITT?Nr') ^T Mahra caste Mahar ("TT?R") could be issued of the petitioner has been rejected by belonging to Mahar (<<TT?R") caste in contained the caste of the petitioner therefore, the caste of the petitioner >upreme Court in the case of Kumari Commr., Tribal Devlopment & Ors., on could be done by the State Level r^-^fe^ T ^XI-HC-22 -^E[ ^liqi^q^ ^Ti1<i^(o, [^<ni^^< 3?T^?T 'q^? V^,f? ^.2-6c)H; ^^..................................^.., WRC^T^RI^ •M 200 'f^ST' 3TI^T^T f^Tli<^ 3TI^T 5h4-jich ^f^a Tumane 'ST^T "^<r[s;n: ^rfin ,. ^ _ Caste Scrutiny Committee. Hence, it| approach the State Level Caste Scruti| of his caste. In case, the petitioner ^ cbl^f<yl<4lr1 'WMf ^ ft1c?t iF^I^K '^3ti^TH37T^r 1 is proper to direct the petitioner to ^iy Committee for seeking verification ^ubmits a representation before the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committ^e for verification of his caste, the committee shall make necessary enc|uiry and verification with regard to caste of the petitioner. The petitioner t|iereafter would be at liberty to apply afresh for issuance of caste certificat|e depending upon the result of the enquiry by the State Level Caste Scrut|ny Committee. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [^ ^feq