wm F mm >K C,£'\00V IN THE HIGH COIERT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. élf M /2010 PETITIONER /Archana Mandai aged about 25 years, D/O Niranjan Prasad Mandal R/o Railway Quarter N0. 294/ l, Railway Colony Bungalow Yard, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur v VERSU8 RESPONDENTS /1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary its Secretary Tribal welfare Department D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur Sub 1V1$1onalOff1cer (Revenue) Distt Ellaspur WRIT PETETION UMBER ARTICLE £22§ AND 22’? OF TEE CQN$TITUTION QF ENDIA ‘ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.6464 OF 2010 PETITIONER Archana Mandal Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 11m day of November, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 06/10/2010 has been passed ignoring completely well settled principles of law laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Othersl alongwith other connected matter. Thus, the order deserves to be quashed. The authorities may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforestated cases. 2. Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that admittedly, the principles of law as explained by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria’, has not been followed and it appears that proper decision has not been taken by the competent authority. Accordingly, the competent authority may be directed to re-consider the matter and pass fresh order. ln view of foregoing, the order dated 06/10/201 0 is quashed with a direction to the respondent No.2 to re—consider the case of the petitioner in the terms of Dinesh Kumar Bhagorial and pass the order in accordance with law at the earliest. //zm / Arun Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri r Judge 1 WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010