^ i?- f "zrs ?_ -'—«Wi IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0 Z^t? OF 2007 PETITIONER \nf.,--"^- ^&s^^- '.•''&fC:-' >^.- .l.'<!?t~ 'V^-'' '\y'' ^ ^:'>" y »>•.? RESPONDENTS Umesh Raikwar, S/o Shri Nanho Das, aged about 36 years, Resident of Pragati Nagar, Brahmi Niwas, Raipur,Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1^. Chhattisgarh Khadi Gramodyog Board , Pandari, Raipur through its Managing Director, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Jati Praman Patra Uccha Stariya Chhaanbeen Samiti through its member Secretary/, Commissioner, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Vishwa Vidyalaya Parisar Raipur (Chhattisgarh) «r-^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBIT10N AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: v~' mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (Q No. 200 of 2007 : Umesh Raikwar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh Khadi Gramodyog Board & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn, J, Present: Sta-i Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Rani Pathak, Advocate forfhe respondentNo.l. ORDER(ORAL) CPassed on 21st day of September, 2010) 1. Challenge in fhis petition is to the order dated 06.11.2006 and the covering memo dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/l colly.) whereby the High High Power Caste Scrotiny Committee (for short the Committee ") has found that the petitioner does not belong to Halba Caste, a scheduled Tribe and the Committee has further directed the State Govemment to take appropriate action against the petitioner. 2. Af the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Dmesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters, wherein this Court' after considering all the aspects of the matter and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases, in para 26 of the judgment and order has made certain clarifications for verification ofthe caste certificate. * WP (S)No.3338 of 2007 decidedon 19-8-2010 ., .^f" ;!:^^>-< '^ st .. s ''^':.'-. ^?s? • ^.' ^-^....^ 4 ^•^; •^1''-"'^ .^,^ 3. It appears that the Committee has not examined the issue of social status of the petitioner as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & another , which has been later on explained in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) by this Court. 4. Thus, the impugnedorder dated 06.11.2006 and the covering memo dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P/l colly.) are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Committee for deciding the issue with regard to social status ofthe petitioner. The Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision of this Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connected matters. 5. The writpetition is accordingly disposed of. Amit Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge (1994) 6 SCC 241 (1995) 4 SCC 32