^^.9f^!7 r rh;:'-'-7--:-.. ^i^^lfc. uiMi^ (2^,. BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(C) No. ^°>^ PETITIONER ^ ^ ..^. ^ ^^ {^" ^^\^.Y" - y^>: <-\- RESPONDENTS ^ ^l-^ i ^^ ). <>"'. - 3 ?^ .»."^.: ^^ fG^i ^ N%, te.^.^ VERSUS 1) 2) 3) 4) /2008 Harshwardhan Chaurase S/o.- Shri Sudarshan Chaurase, Aged abouf 31 years, R/o.- Tulsi Sadan, Ravigram, Telibandha ,Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Scheduled Caste & Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) State Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through Director, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, University Campus Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director General of Police Office of Director General of Police, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.6317 OF2008 PETITIONER Harshwardhan Chaurase RESPONDEN.TS Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 24th dayof September, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.10.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the Committee') whereby the caste certificate issued to the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the procedure as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others', reiterated in Directorof Tribal Welfare, Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri and Anothei2, have not been complied with in its letter and spirit, while considering the case of the petitioner for verification of his social statuscertificate. 3. 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 1 (1994)68cc 241 2 (1995)48cc 32 ^,:^'*^s^^^'x :^1 '^y \^.^,^y -/.g wyfs^ %^^__^-^ '"^^^' Chhattisgarh & Others3 and other connected matters, wherein this Court after considering a!l 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 of the caste certificate. 4. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 20.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Madhuri Patil (supra) & Laveti Giri (supra) and further explained by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connected matters, as early as possible. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok ' WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010