CD m£€§ E Ei§§§éra cf’uwb IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. e Lf‘?) i 12010 PETIONERS “/Shilpa Vinodiya D/b. Shri Dilip Kumar Vinodiya, aged about 23 years,- /o. Clo. Mr Babi Manvatkar, Near Raghuvirkripa Bhawan, Garhbhir Gali, Mann Chowk, Tikrapara, Bilaspur ‘(C‘G.) e w» g ym e V“\ Ac VERSUS / RESPONDENTS 1. 'State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Secretary, Scheduleg Castes and Schedule Tribes Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya; Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Development, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla, Vishavidyalaya us, apur (C.G.) 3 Sub—Divisional Officer, Revee Deartment Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G.) Tahildar, Bilaspur, is. Bilaspur C.G.) IT R s. ta y W w Camp Ri f” nu p , ( s Dtt ( WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTIQN OF INDIA [v RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri, J. Present: Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12m day of November, 2010) L 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 29-09—2010 (Annexure — P/1) has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, ignoring completely well settled principles of law laid down by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagon’a v. State of Chhatiisgarh & Otl‘iers1 along with other connected matters and in Narendra Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Othersz. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The authorities m‘ay 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. 3. 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 Bhagoria7 and Narendra Dehariyaz has not been followed in its letter and spirit and it appears that proper decision has not been taken by the competent authority. 1 WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19-8-2010 >T\\ 2 WP (C) No.5070 of 2007 decided on 27-9—2007 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6487 of 2010 PETITIONER : Shilpa Vinodiya VERSUS Accordingly, the competent authority may be directed to re-consider the matter and pass fresh order. This Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria’, in para 26, inter alia, observed as under : “26 (i) The application should not be rejected on the ground that the documents relating to pre constitution period, are not available. lf 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 Vitha/ 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 Vithal Kumbhare (supra); Having regard to the above-stated observations and directions passed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoriai and in Narendra Dehariyaz, the impugned order dated 29-09—2010 (Annexure — P/1) is quashed with a direction to the respondent No3 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. With the above—stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of, I Hi Sdl- Gowri Satish K. Agnihotri Judge / I ”1,8