n»ff!' ^l •l •?-' f mGH_CpUR;rOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRIT PETmON (C) No. 6723 of2006 PETmONER : Rakesh Kumar Choure S/o Shri Krishna Rao Choure, aged about 42 years, occupation Security Sub Inspector,C.S.E.B. Rajnandgaon, R/'o Ward No. 19, Sahdev Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VER8US RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Dispartiiient, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisionai OfSeer, Rajnaiidgaon (C.G.) 3. Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) \VMT PETITIQN TJNDER TT^Tr\T?n AT3Ttrr'T u ^^^./^^ AK.il^LBZZ6;'227 OF THE CONSTmjTION OFEiSrDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Asnihotn.,J, Present: Smt HamidaSiddique, Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govermiient Advocate forflie State/respondeiits. OKDER(ORAL) (Passed on 08tB day of July, 2009) Heard. 1. The case ofthe petilioner is that the petitioner was Som on 10.04.1964 in Rajnaadgaon, a district ofthe pr^ent State ofChhattisgarh and the eretwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Pursuant to carving out of new State of Chhattisgarh under Madhya Pradesh ReorganizatiQn Act, 2000, tiie petitiooer was required to seek validation of his caste certificate whteh was eraated to him oa 11.7.2000 (Amiexure P/ll). On application being made by th® petitioner, the competent authority, i.e. the Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon, rejected the applieation of the petitioner for validation of his social status certificate on fhe ground the ancestors of the petitioner have mierated to the then State of Madhya Pradesh prior to 1950. Thus, the petitioner was required to submit ail the requisite doeuments. 2. It is furfher submitted that once the petitioner has been g-anted proper valid social statiis certificate by the then State of Madhya Pradesh, it is not 12 necessary to coiKider all the documents once again, as aecording to the ; " • • petitioner, the State Govemment has issued circular dated 28.7.2003 (Amiexure P /12) stating that for revalidation ofthe social status certificate, no documents may be requisitioned. 3. Be that as it may, it appears fhat the respondent No. 2 has completely ignored the circular dated 28.7.2003 (Annexure P/12) as well as the order dated 27.09.2007 passed by a Division Bench ofthis High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5070/2007 (Narendra Dehariya v. State of C.G. & Others) and other connected matters. 4. For the reasons stated hereiaabove, the impugned order dated 31.03.2006 (Annexure P/l) passed by tfie respondent No. 2 is set aside. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider fhe application offhe petitioner afresh in ligte of the circular dated 27.08.2003 (Atmemre P/12) passed by the Sfate of Chfaattisgarii as well as tfae order dated 27 September, 2007 passed in W.P.fC) No. 5070/2007 {suvra). 5. Having regard to the facts situation offhe ease tfaat since the applicaticm of the petitioner was rejected on 31.03.2006, it is expedient that the Respoodent No. 2 should examine the matter a fresh as sfated above and decide tfae same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 6. The petition is allowed to the above extart. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge