sys¥Mm^ a? ~ •'..:''*¥^3'5^Bi»..l r—^-''s^g'y -".w IN THE HIGH COTJRT OF JUDICATURE MADHYa. PR&DESH &T JABALPUR OF 1999 WRIT PETITIOH H0.~~- '•' PBTITIONER RESPONDEHTS t- O. Santosh ^ Aged aboat'28 years, S/o Shri K.K. Gangadharan. R/o Lalita Niwas, House No.143, Shantl Nagar, Bhllai (M.P.5. V E R S.U2S The State of Kadhya Pradesh Tbrough; The Secretary, Hinistry of Home/Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bbopal (H.P.). (2Y Distrl.et Collector, Darg, District Durg (M.P.) (3}!^ Bhllai Steel Plant & Govt. of India Undertaking, Bhilal, Distrlct Durg, M.P., Thrqugh; its Managing Directpr. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTS 226/227 OF CONSTrTUTlON OP INDIA .-^€ ' ^w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITEETmONJMO.3430 OF 1999 PETITIQNER G. Santosh R|s6PQNDENTS PEtlTIQNER -RE6PONDENTS P|ST]TIQNER RE8PONDENTS Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh &,0thers WRIT_PEjmQN N0.3315 QF 1999 G. Rajesh Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others .And WRIT PETITION N0.3401 OF 1999 G. Girish Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others /-• (Writ Petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri R. Dutta,Advocate for respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 8th day ofSeptember, 2010) W.P.Nos.3430, 3315 & 3401 of 1999 involve the same questjon Qf law and facts, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. Grievance of the petitioners, who are real brothers, is that the respondent Collector, Durg, by order dated 24-6-1999 cancelled the caste certificates ofthe petitioners in an illegal and arbitrary rnanner and wlthout tiaving jurisdiction. This Court, on 18-8-1999, 23-7-1999 & 23-8-1999, respectively stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 24-6-1999. It appears that the authorities have taken steps against the petitioners on the basis of the order passed by the Collector. It is •y^ '"iS'as. i. )gysaa| ^ c^ 7. 9. Gowrl well settled that the Collector is not competent to make an enquiry in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commr. Thbal Development and State of Maharashtra & Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmai2. If there is any dispute with regard to the social status of a person, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the Committee') alone is competent to decide such dispute. Admittedly, the dispute was not referred to the Committee and the Collector, Durg, cancelled the caste certificates of (he petitioners without having anyjurisdiction. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, the'aimpugned orders appear to be vitiated on 'account of the fact that the needful has not been done in accordance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) and Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmar (supra). The petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 24-6-1999 (in all 3 petitions) are quashed. No order asto costs. On the request of learned counsel appearing for the respondents, liberty is reserved to the respondents to refer the matter to the Committee, if so advised, for examining the matter in accordance with law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in various cases and to pass appropriate order within the time limit prescribed by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra), which has further been reiterated with explanation by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others3. A copy of this order may be placed on the records of W.P.Nos.3430, 3315 & 3401 of 1999. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge