rh“ @@ SINGLE BHWH C/§* \ac/” BEFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATQM >~ BILASPUR w. P. (S) No. 30.2“? /2o11 Avinash Meshram S/o Shri 3/0.- Shri M.D.Meshram, Aged about 28 years, R/o.- Behind Gupta Hotel, Bodhghat Road, Frezpur, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G. PETlTiONER VERSUS ( / 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through~ Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) State Level High Power Caste Verification Committee, Raipur, (Tribal Research and Training Institution), Through - lt’s Director, University Campus, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3f) Director, Directorate of Fisheries ,Distt- Raipur (CTG.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ) RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)‘NO.1050 OF 2011 PETITIONER Avinash Meshram Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) i Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :~ Shri Anup Mazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 24‘ day of February, 201 1) Heard iearnedycounsei for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to verify the caste certificate of the petitioner immediately without demanding public documents prior to 10-8-1950. The‘ petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent No.3 not to change the service conditions of the petitioner or remove him from the service in absence of verified caste certificate. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Add]. Commissioner, Tribal Development and other31 as well as this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagon'a v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2 and other connected matters had already provided the prescribed time for considering and deciding the applications. 4. The petitioner, without waiting for completion of the prescribed period, had approached this Court seeking a direction to decide his application med for verification of his social status certificate at the earliest. This cannot be done at this stage, as oncekthe period has been prescribed by the aforesaid decisions, there is no reason to make any direction to decide the application of the t petitioner prior to that period. in view of foregoing, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge T r4 Sd/- Gowri i ("1994) 6 scc 241 , 2 WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19—8-2010