^seo " fcv °-' s""'—1^' >0-ti/.,..- ^^MA?^..-/'-';'::^^3 ^w cv \>At IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR W.PJSL ILo^ .•^o?0 ! /2007 PETiTIONER^ RESPONDENTS ^' \ . ^\ ^\^ Kamla Na.e, D/o. Birbal Nag fManihi"), Aged ab&ut 45 years, R/o. Khorma, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, 'Ilirough: Secretary Aduniati Kalyan Vibhag MsntTalaya, Raipur, District. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2j Conumssioner, Adimjati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Ravishankar Vishvavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur (CGj 3] Collector, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) 4] CKhattisgarh, Rajya Anusiichit Janjati Aayog, Raipur, Through: its Secretary, &l-Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 5] ^.Sub-Divisional OfBeer (Revenue) F>ratappiir, District Surguja (CG) 6]/^Mahendra Gupta S/o. Raiachandra Gupta, R/o. Aman Dand, PoUce Station & TahsU PrataDpur, Distt Si.irguia fCG) T?R!T PET!T!QR UNDER ARTICL'E- 226 QF TKE- p\^'^ 9 COrreTITCTIOK GF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Wnti'etition (S)No. 3201 of 2007 Petitioners Kamla Nag Versus Respondents State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDJA, (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for fhe petitiouer. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Law-yer for the respondents No. 1 to 5. None for fhe respondent No.6, despite service ofnotice. ORDERIOral) (Passed on this 2 Ist day ofOctober, 2009) Heard. 1. The chatlenge ia this petition is to the report dated 11.12.2006 (Aanexure P/15), whereby the Sub Divisional OfBcer (Revenue), Rratappur, District - Surguja has found that fhe petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Accordiagly, by order dated 19.4.2007 (Aanexure P/18) the CoUector, Surguja directed tlie Sub Divisional Officer, Pratappur to lodge F.I.R. against ftie petitioner and take appropriate steps. 2. This Court on 14.6.2007 stayed fhe effect and operation offhe im.pugned order dated 19.4.2007. 3. It appears that the authorities have taken steps agaiast the petitioner on the basis of fhe report subnutted by fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenuej, Pratappur. The petitioner had ab-eady obtained caste certificate froiu Tahsfldar, Pratappur. It is weU settied fhat fhe Siib Divisional Officer (Revenue) is not conipetent to niake aa enquiry in the light of the obsen?ations made by fhe Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Comm*'. Tribuaal Development1 aad State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ravi Prafaaslt Babulal Sing Parmar2. Ifthere is aay dispute wifh regard to the social status of a person, fhe ^ Jl ' AIR 1995 SC 94) 2 2007 (1) SCC 40 7. Amit/ Thalmr T^~ •2- High Power Scrutiny Comiiuttee alone is coinpetent to decide such dispute. Admittedly, fhe dispute was not referred to fhe High Power Caste Scrutiny Conxmittee aad fhe CoUector, Surguja on ffae basis of the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenuej, Pratappur, has directed lodging ofF.I.R. and taking appropriate steps against fhe petitioner in. his service career. Having heard learued couiisel appearing for the parties aad haviag perused the docuiuents appended thereto, the im.pugued orders appears to be vitiated on account of fhe fact that the needful has not been done in accordauce with fhe law as laid down. by the Supreiue Court in Madhiui Patll (supra) and Ravi The petition is accordiagly atlowed. The iiupugned report dated 11.12.2006 (Aanexure P/15) and fhe order dated 19.4.20Q7 (Annexure P/ 18) are quashed. No order asto costs. On fhe request of leamed counsel appearing for the respondents/State, liberty is reserved to fhe respondents/State to refer the matter to fhe High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, tf so advised, for examiaing fhe inatter ia accordaiice with law, as enunciated by fhe Suprenie Court ia various cases and to pass appropriate order within the time limit piescribed by the Supreiae Court ia Madhuri PatU (supra) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihom Judge