WTG’O V \ \ IN THE HIeH coukT OF CHHAmssARI—I AT BILASPuR WRIT PETrrION (c) No; 19 32/ OF 201 1 PETITIONER: /: Ravi Kumar' Dongr‘e, S/o. Shri beendaym' Dongre, Aged abou‘l‘ 29 years, R/o. Village~ Korar, Tahsé§— Bhanupr‘m‘appur, Disf‘r. -“Kanker' (96.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /1. The Sfa‘re of ChhuTTisgar‘h, Through: Secrefar‘y, Departmen’r of Triba! Welfare, D.K.$. Bhawan, _ Muna‘rralaya, Raipur' (C.G.) CoHecTor, Kanker Disff. Kanker‘ (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhanuprafappur, Dish‘. UTfar Basfar Kanker, (p6) ’ 3f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1932 of2011 Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ’Qiigy ofAugust, 201 1.‘ \ I Satish K. Agniotri Judge Sdl— , h PETITIONER Ravi Kumar Dongre. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. EQ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1932 of 2011 SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Advocate appears as Amicus Curiae. (Delivered on ./6tfiay ofAugust, 201 1) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 3 to release/return the caste certificate of the petitioner (Annexure P/5), which was duly granted by the competent authority i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Uttar Bastar, Kanker (for short ‘the SDO ’). The briefly stated facts necessary for decision of this case are that, according to the petitioner, he belongs to scheduled caste category namely ‘Mahar’. The petitioner was issued a domicile certificate by Tahsildar, Kanker, District Kanker, in case No. 253/B- 121/2001—2002 (Annexure P/4). The social status certificate was granted in Revenge Case No. 441/B 121/2002-2003 (Annexure P/5) mentioning that the petitioner belongs to Mahar caste community under‘the Scheduled Caste category. On the basis of the report of the Collector, Kanker, that the petitioner does not belong to Mahar jx—w . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER : Ravi Kumar Dongre. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. $% caste, the petitioner was terminated from service i.e. from the Railway Department, Where he was engaged in a job of class IV employee in Wagon Repair Workshop, Raipur. Challenge to the termination is pending consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The petitioner received a notice from the office of the SDO, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, calling upon him to appear before the SDO personally on 04.07.2009 alongwith land records prior to the year, 1950. A second notice was also issued calling upon the petitioner to appear with the caste certificate on 08.08.2009 (Annexure P/7) in Review Case No. 441/B-121/2002-09. The petitioner appeared before the SDO with his caste certificate which was impounded and thereafter, the SDO retained the same for considering the validity of the same. On 15.07.2010 (ArmeXure P/8), the petitioner made a request to the SDO to return the caste certificate granted by the competent authority which did not yield any'result. Thus, this petition seeking the above stated direction. I /_. 3. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the social status certificate has been granted by the competent authority, the SDO subsequently cannot review the same under any provisions of law, the same can be verified by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the HPC ’). The HPC alone is competent to verify the social status certificate aher affording proper opportunity of hearing to the concerned person. ‘ Thus, the action of the SDO, Bhanupratappur, is uncalled for and 3% arbitrary‘ Shri Thakur would further submit that law has clearly been settled on this issue in Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another v. Add], Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others’ and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri & Another2 by the Supreme Court and in Dineslz Kumar Blzagoria v. State of Chhazzisgarh & Othersj by this High Court. Having regard to the importance of the matter, Shri P.K.Bhaduri, learned Advocate was requested to assist the Court. Shri Bhaduri, appearing as Amicus Curiae, has submitted a written submission stating that under the provisions of section 33 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for snort ‘the Code ’) the Revenue officers may summon any person whose attendance, he considers necessary either t0 be examined as a party or t0 give evidence as a witness or to produce any document in a revenue matter. Section 41 of the Code empowers the Board of Revenue to make rules regulating the practice and procedure ofthe Board and procedure to be allowed by other revenue courts. He would next submit that though there is a provision of review of order under section 51 of the Code, which can be done on a suo moto basis also but not the certificate, which has been granted by the competent authority. Thus, the power under section 51 of the Code is not available in case of issue of caste certificate. 1 l v '(i994)6scc24l f(1995)4scc32 J w,P.(S) No. 3338/2007, decided 6519.08.2010. I%M l ‘i x xx 33 Shri Arun Sao, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would also submit that in View of the above, the SDO had no power to recall the caste certificate issued by the competent officer as it has been made clear in Madhuri Patil’ and Lavetz' Girz'2 that HPC alone is competent to verify the social status certificate granted by the competent authority. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The SDO has been authorized by the judicial pronouncements in Madhuri Patill and Lavetz‘ Giriz to issue social status certificate. Issue of social status certincate does not come Within the definition of ‘order’. The provisions of Land Revenue Code, as aforestated, are applicable only in case where the revenue authorities, in 1 exercise of their quasi judicial power settle the dispute in a lis between the parties. Thereagainst, the Code provides for appeal, revision and review and as such, the same provisions would not be applicable in the case on hand. Grant of caste certificate (social status certificate) is a recognition of the existing status of a person particularly in relation to his caste. The competent authority is ‘ empowered to consider the facts of his caste and issue caste certificate, but not review thereader. Madhuri Patill has been referred with approval in Laveti Giriz and x other several cases and as such, law laid down therein still holds the field. .It is' clearly provided that an application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue SDO and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than to the officer at the Taluka or Mandal level. Thereafter, it was further laid down that the application for verification of caste certificate by the scrutiny committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to the post. Sub para 4 of para 13 of the judgment provides for constitution of the scrutiny committee, wherein, it is clearly stated that in the case of scheduled caste, any officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social status certificate, may be associated with the scrutiny committee. Thereafter, the procedural direction has been laid down for verification of the caste certificate. The proposition of law as aforestated, was reiterated by the“ Supreme Court in Lavetz' Girz'2 and relying on several decision of the Supreme Court, by this Court, in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria3 and in other judicial pronouncements. In Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State ofMaharastra & Others4, wherein, the caste certificate issued by the competent authority was . doubted by the State Govemment and on that basis, the petitioner therein was reverted without referring the matter to the scrutiny committee, it was held that this was not the correct way to deal with the appellan "s case, holding as under: “6. In fact, in such a situation the employer was required to refer the question before the Scrutiny 4 (2004) 9 SCC 481 CH Committee which admittedly had been constituted and established for coming to the matter. We may notice that in Kumari Madhuri Patil case this Court observed: (SCC p. 254, para 13) “I3. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or . spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certifidate.” Similar observations have been made in Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri. This aspect 0f the matter has been noticed following the observations of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil HI) V. Addl. C0mmr., Tribal Development (SCC at p. 438, paras 3 & 5) and in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (JT at pp. 574-75): (SCC pp. 221-2‘2, para 40) “3. As regards prayer (b) read with Direction (iv) of the order of this Court, we too appreciate the inconvenience caused due to vast area of the State. Therefore, instead of one committee of three officers, there will be three Scheduled Tribe/Caste Scrutiny Committees comprising of five members with quorum of three members, as suggested in para 4 of the directions, to take a decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six Caste Scrutiny Committees for SCs, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and the Special Backward Category in existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, (42, Amaravati and Nagpur would continue to scrutinise the certiiicates issued by the respective officers and take a decision in that behalf. In this regard, it is also suggested by Shri Dholakia, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, that in ‘ case any certificate has been wrongfully refused by the certificate issuing authority, the aforestated Committees also would go into the question and decide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case , it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct the authority to grant the certificate. * * * 5. With regard to prayer (d), along with the , Vigilance Cell, one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers.” £7? 11. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India, vide letter No. 13/2/74/Est (SCT) dated 05.08.1975 has authorized the following officers to issue caste certificate: “1. District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Collector/Deputy Collector/ 1 St Class City Stipendry Magistrate/City Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate/Executive Magistrate/Extra Assistant Commissioner. 2‘ Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate/Presidency Magistrate. 3. Revenue officer not below the rank of Tahsildar. 4. SDO of the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides. 5. Administrator/Secretary to Administrators/ Development Officer (Lakshdweep Islands)” t 12. The Supreme Court is enjoined to declare law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The judicial pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in Madhurz‘ Patil’ and Laveti Girz'z and several other matters, have become law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Thus, any provision which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court can be ignored. The circulars and instructions of the authorities under the statutory provisions are, in normal circumstances, binding on the authorities, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court considers the questions arising therefrom, the law as declared by the Supreme Court or the High Court will be binding on the authorities, and not the circulars and instructions. The executive cannot take a different stand other than what has been laid down by the High Court or the Supreme Court on adjudication of the issue involved therein. The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the authorities and the ' Government or its officials cannot arrogate to themselves to reject thejudgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court, as has been done in the instant case by the SDO in initiating review, suo molo and impounding the caste certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. the predecessor SDO. ‘ 13. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in its letter no‘ B.C./12025/2/76/SCT-1 dated 22.03.1977 has issued guidelines with respect to verification of the cases and it has been stated that before issuance of certificates the Revenue authorities should make a detailed verification. 14. The Ceneral Administration Department, State of M.P. vide its letter No. Fl/GAD/Reservation Cell, dated 01.08.1996, has issued detailed directions With respect to issuance of caste certificates and income certificates. In these directions, it has been stated that the SDO (R) or any prescribed officer on receiving an application for issuance of caste certificate shall register a caste under the Head Miscellaneous Revenue Case ( ) B l2l. It has also been stated that the prescribed officer shall either himself or through his subordinate officer get the case verified and after satisfying himself about the veracity of the claims made issue caste certificate or rej ect it. 15. In the aforestated circulars issued by the Govemment of India as well as by the State of Chhattisgarh, it is clear that the certificate is not an order and this is an administrative function of the prescribed authority. 16. In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Othersj, the, then, Mukherji J of the Supreme Court held as under: “134. I believe that we must do away with ‘the childish fiction’ that law is not made by the judiciary. Austin in his Jurisprudence (at page 65, 4th edn.) has described the Blackstone's principle of finding the law as ‘the childish fiction’. R. Subba Rao, C.J. in I.C. Golak Nath V. State ofPunjab has referred to these observations. This Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is enjoined to declare law. The expression ‘declared’ is wider than the words ‘found or made’. To declare is to announce opinion. Indeed, the latter involves the process, while the former expresses result. Interpretation, ascertainment and evolution are parts of the process, while that interpreted, ascertained or evolved is declared as law. The law declared by this Court is the law of i the land. To deny this power to this Court on the basis of some outmoded theory that the court only 5 1991 Supp (1) scc 600 \\\_ \ l xxf finds law but does not make it, is to make ineffective th6 powerful instrument of justice placed in the hands of the highest judiciary of this country. See the observations of K. Subba Rao, C.J. in I.C. Golak Nath Vi State ofPunjab (SCR pp. 813-14). I would, therefore, plead for a more ‘ active and creative role for the courts in declaring what the law is.” l7. In M Ramakotaiah & Others v. Union of Indiah& 0thers6, the Supreme Court held as uner: d “30. The High Court after quoting the above decision held that “the seniority list has to conform to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and any clarification, which has got the effect of running contra to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, have to be necessarily ignored, in View of Article 141 of the Constitution of India”. It was the opinion of the High Court that the observations of the Tribunal, which run contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, be ignored and directed the authorities to take into consideration the principles laid down by this Court while preparing the seniority list. Considering this, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not ignored the decision of this Court. Thus, in our opinion, the question of the High Court erring in ignoring the decision does not arise as it has adequately considered the decision before pronouncing its own judgmen .” l8. The Supreme Court, in Palitana Sugar Mills Private Limited & a Another v. Vilasiniben Ramachandran & 0thers7, held as under: “15. A perusal of the said correspondence would, in our view, show that the respondents have _ expressly stated that the Govemment has decided not to accept the judgment of this Court insofar as the aforementioned lands are concemed. It is needless to emphasise that judgments of this Court are binding on all authorities and the Govemment cannot arrogate to itself powers to reject the judgment ofthis Cou .” 6 7 (2007) 14 scc 405 (2007) 15 scc 218 8 (2008) 3 scc 574 9 (2008) 13 SCC 1 19. In Som Mttal v. Government of Karnatakag, the Supreme Court observed as under: “12. When this Court renders judgments, it does . so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this Court is binding on all courts. All authorities in the territory of India are required t0 act in aid of it. Any interpretation of a law or a judgment, by this Court, is a laW declared by this Court. The wider the power, more onerous is the ’ responsibility to ensure‘that nothing is stated or directed in excess of what is required or relevant for the case, and to ensure that the Court's orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to a legal position in the minds of any authority or citizen, and also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law. Be that as it may.” 20. Further, in Commissioner 0f Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industriesy, the Supreme Court held as under: “7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding 'in“law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the View expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Coiirt. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. 8. ...To lay content with the circular would mean that the valuable right of challenge would be denied to him and there would be no scope for adjudication by the High Court or the Supreme W 12 Court. That would be against the very concept of majesty of law declared by this Court and the binding effect in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.” 21. In this case, the SDO, even if there is error in the validity of the caste certificate, could not have initiated a proceeding to recall the caste certificate issued by the competent authority. In such a situation, having regard to the above stated facts, the matter ought to have been referred to the HPC for verification. 22. The SDO has exceeded his jurisdiction by reviewing the issue of caste certificate subsequently and thereafter retaining the same for a long period Accordingly, the initiation of revenue proceeding to review the caste certificate is bad in law, unjust and deserves to be and is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. This court records appreciation for the assistance extended by Shri Bhaduri in assisting the Court. The State Government is directed to make payment t0 Shri Bhaduri towards professional fee, quantified to be a sum ofRs. 5000/—. Amit Stil- Satish K. Agnitaotri Judge 23. 24.