INTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V_VRIT PETITION IC) NO. ELI g; [2010 PETITIONERS Dipika Vinodiya D/o.3hri Dih‘p Kumar Vinodiya, aged about 25 years, R/o. C/o, Mrs. Babfta Manvatkar, Near Raghuvlrkripa Bhawan, Gambhir Gali, M‘annu Chowk, Tikrapara, (CG) m RESPONDENTS 1,. State of Chham'sgarh, Through: ~ Castes and Secretary, Sohedule Development Department, D‘K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Schedule Commissioner, Castes and Schedule I Development, Pt / Tnbes Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Department Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. ”‘TahsildanBilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE E CONSITUTION OF INDIA Bilaspur Schedule ‘l rlbes Bilaspur, { E . HIGH OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6485 of 2010 Dipika Vinodiya VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.SiBhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12““ day of November, 2010) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 4-10—2010 (Annexure — P/1) has been passed by the rSub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, ignoring completeiy weil settled principles of law laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhatt/‘sgarh & Othersl along with other connected matters and in Narendra Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The authorities may be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforestated cases. Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, submits that admittedly, the principles of law as explained by'_this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagor/‘a1 and Narendra Dehariya2 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and it appears that proper decision has not been» taken by the competent authority. "’r\ 1 WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19—8-2010 ) No.5070 of 2007 decided on 27-9—2007 \\IWP (C PETITIONER Present: VJ Q9 Accordingly, the competent authority may be directed to re—consider the matter and pass fresh order. 4. This Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria’, in para 26, inter alia, observed as under : “26 (i) The appiication should not be rejected on the ground that the documents relating to pre constitution period, are not available. If the application has been made by a candidate for verification of his social status certificate, the application cannot be rejected at the threshold for want of land record before the pre constitution period, (j) In case of alleged migration from the original State of Madhya Pradesh to the present State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court has considered the issue in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) because the migration arose on account of bifurcation of the earlier State of Madhya Pradesh, the same may be considered in the light of Sudhakar Vitha/ Kumbhare (supra). 5. Having regard to the above-stated observations and directions passed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria’ and in Narendra Dehariya2, the impugned order dated 4-10—2010 (Annexure — P/1) is quashed with a direction to the respondent No.3 to re-consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, without insisting on production of the land records prior to the'year 1950, as land records alone are not the requirement, at the earliest. 6. With the above-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of, ’/"l Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri