Pefifioner ‘ K fRajesh Nandeshwar', 5/0 Shri @C Regkmimt > IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH AT BILASPUR SlNEiE BEN£H w.P.(227)No. ff£§2 oF 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARHCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Rewslcme/L Dukalur‘a'm Nandeshwar‘, CasTe éebme g‘D-OCR) Mahar, aged about 36 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Dongargar‘h, Tahsil Dongar‘gar‘h, Dis‘r‘r. Rajnandgaon (Chhaf’risgar'h) Versus g/ Sfa‘re of Chhm‘fisgar‘h, Through Revenue, D.K.$. Bhawan, Manfralaya, Raipur Responden‘rs VJ The Secrefar‘y, Depar’rmenf of {Responden’r no. 5 To 8 R/o Jarahabhafa, Bilaspur (C6)} ’I w? x éY‘ \ ..... /, 3. Sub—Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh, Disf‘r. Rajnandgaon (CG) y, 4. Board of Revenue, Circui‘r Cour‘f, Raipur (Chhaf‘risgarh) 5./V Smf Vimal Smgh Wd/o La‘re Nlhal Smgh aged 7O years 6.; Sm‘r. Vyula Soni, D/o LaTe Nihal Singh, aged 39 years, f, 7. Dr. Vikran‘r Singh, 5/0 La’re Nihal Singh, aged 33 years, 8. Ms. -Vaila Singh, D/o Late Nihal Singh, aged abou’r 36 years EW.W.W mm 11mm m mmmw Wim WW éawimm 3 E Ran’hia 3m Jastme N K Aga’Waé “E44 2-2wa $hr§ Shasmnk Thakur, e $hré GD. Vaswani, G. Aévacate for the State Heard an adm§ss§cn. T%e mstam pe‘iiier‘: i5 d§rectea€ agazimt the omer daied 24~08~ 29% passed by im Board uunsei fur ihe petmoner. £31. wéth 3m Saushii Dubey, Gsvt. cf Revenue‘ Raipur whayeb"; am! wh&r&ander the {evision pi'efeired by ihe peti'i:§aner is :ejec'ied. ‘é'he facts brief%y statad a The getiiwaer purcha5§sd same pmgaeriy vide saie deg Singh. ,Qfte! 1:153 zieath, ms !ega! :iah bafcra the Sub D§v%sisnaE G$cen B of E'he Chmmsgarh Larad Ravenue Sade {fOf Sher? “the Cccie’} siaimg thems&!ves as tribaas. in i‘hat r: §¥ed an appiicaicn under Omar H Dfaceduie' (for $h0f€ U.the CJDN} ('\ i for i0 ma caste 0f the Fespoadems. The: ;e<:3 by 'é‘he SLEE: Div§sionai G§§§¢er, s‘Le ceeéiacaae .g 4‘ submié‘i‘ed‘ bv éhe 1e said order was; af€§rmec§ by ther 'y the 30am! m“ Revenue, mace thEsg $mexu§e P-E from iate Niha ?e§r$sem&t%‘v'es med an appl§ca Doiigargaa’h wder Section 170» 'e as under: waceedmg, thge gaetitiwer hezei Rage ’%2 0f thca Cede 6f CM ’ céisccvew e“ dGcumenf reiating apgs’;cazo"s ha$ been éi5mé$$ Dengargarh hoktéing the ca yeasancfené$ &$ gamma. H Addéééwa GeéEec‘écr am! aésa E: pe€§§an mag fa: the gaetEz‘iarser wauié‘ ? i . i ' v?:23: ‘Ume vwéf§cation m f. casie 5 cei acaw f Gas": gnéy 3:3 dcna by fne Qa$i $crui§: } Scmrmi‘aae ¢orasé§é d u e ' 31W m m 2003 W .............................................. . WW wm %amm ,gr of the apex Court in the case a: Kumari Madhm‘i Pati.’ and anagher v. Add]. Commissioner, Trib Developmem and others: reported in NR 1995 SC 94, and; ther fore, the crder impugned is bad and - deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appea mg §or_the State have not disputed thigs iega!’ position but subm ed ihat so far as appHcation for discevery of the document is concerned‘ it has been tightty- dtsmissed by the Couyt be! w and aft‘itmed toy the appetlai authorities. l have heard teamed so hsei for the parties and petused the order impugnee, 3h View of the gudgh’ie t of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Mee’tzm‘i Pets? arid at? titer ti. Add}. Sommi'ssiener, Tribe; ‘ Eevet’ep'menf emf others (S pie), as referred herein ebove, the genuiheness ot the caste certi icete is to be examéned anoi decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committ e, before deciding a case, ftndthg of which is squarety based cm ea te certificate, Ttherefore \ ih View of a eve, the petitton is disposett of and s‘t ie diteoted that the Su‘o Btvieiertat Gtfaeet shalt fttst get the caste certificate of the reeponden ‘ verified from the Caste Scrutiny Commtttee ey sending it for i verttieation and oniy theteatter, ehet preceed to peee the ot'der in t matter in accordance with iew. w Sd/- I If N.K.Agarwal : ‘ Judge t‘. h r- x [131%W e