^ r ,c / IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. fC)N0. ^\^c / 2009 Petitioner ^^A y. •<^-..- ^^y Smt. Rama Rao, W/o Shri Jayprakash Aged about 54 years, R/o Chatapara, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.)- presently residing at Mumbai Madhu Sudan Building /\ wing 3rd Floor Flat No.7 Kumud Vidya Mandir Society bev Nar Bagh AAumbai. L^'s--) Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary bepartment of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, bau Kalyon Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.&.) Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Somiti, (In the matter of scrutiny of SC/ST Caste Certificate) through Its Secretary, Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota, bistt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) Ku. Tulika Prajapati, Sub bivisional Officer, Kota, Oistt. Bilaspur-(<:.G.) WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TH_E CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF SUIJAQLE W^I'L s.-. WRITS, DIRECTCON ETC TO &0 JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. a, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR1T PETITION CC) No. 1436 of2009 PETITIONER : Smt. RamaRao. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri A.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of September, 2010) 1. Grievance ofthe petitioner is that the respondent No.2-High Power Caste Scmtiny Committee (for short (tthe Committee')) has found that he does not belong to scheduled caste category, vide order dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/4). 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others} and other connected matters, wherein this Court after considering all the aspects ofthe matter and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases, in para 26 ofthejudgment and order has made certain clarifications for verification ofthe caste certificate. 3. It appears that the Committee has not examined the issue ofsocial 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 & another3, which has been later on explained in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) by this Court. 4. Thus, the impugned order dated 02.02.2009 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Committee for deciding the issue with regard to social status of the petitioner. The Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision ofthis Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connected matters. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd7- SatishK.Agmhotri Judge 'WP (S) No.3338 of2007 decided on 19-8-2010 2 (1994)68cc 241 3 (1995)48cc 32