1} . -. x^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTJSGARH: BSLASPUR W. P.fCiNo. 2344 of2007 Pstffioner : Birsndra Kumar Dev/angan Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarti and others 1 ^ ^ Post for order on^/ April, 2007. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.fONo. 2344 of 2007 Peffioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Birendra Kumar Dwrangan S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Dewar^an, aged about 22 years, OccupaBon Shtctent <rf L.L.B. Part II, Govt. Coffege Dhamatari (C.G.) Resident of Near Neharu School Tikrapara Ward, Dhamatari Dist. DhamMari (C.G.) State <rf Chhattisgarti through ttis Secretary Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Cast Department D.K.S. Bhawan Manfralaya Raipur (C.G.) The Coltector Dhamateri, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) Tahsikfar Dhamatari District Dhamatari(C.G.) Lala Ram Pawar S/o Lafe shri Kndu lat By Caste - Sya4if!ahra, Working as Peon in fte Munidpal Offlce Dhamatari, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) Resident of Near Neharu Schooi Tikrapara Ward Dhamatari Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.). Rajesh Pawar S/o Shri Lala Ram Pawar, Kumari R^ni D/o Shrt Lala Ram Pawar, Umesh Pawar S/o Shrf Lal Ram Pawar Udho Ram S/o Late Shri Bindu lal Pav/ar By Caste Baya. Ku. Pumima PawarD/o Shri Lklho Ram Ku. Poonam Pawar Olo Shri Udho Ram. Ku. Soni^i Pawar D/o Shri Udho Ram. Ku. Chanda Pawar D/o Shri Udho Ram Tameshwar Pawar S/o Shri Udho Ram Dameshwar Pawar S/o Shri Udho Ram Madan Pawar S/o late Shri Bindu (a! Pawar By Caste Baya. Ku. Savita Pawar Uo ^iri Madan Pawar Ku. Geetanjati Pawar D/o Shri MadanPawar \ ^l'- 18. 19. 20. Niteshwar Pawar S/o Shri Madan Pawar. Onter Pawar S/o Shri Shivtal Pawar Gopal Pawar S/o Shri Onkar Psmar, Ashwani Pawar S/o Shri OnterPawar, Rsspondent No. 4 to 20 are by Caste - Bya and Residenl cf Near Neharu Schoo! Titoapara Ward Dhamatari Dist. Dhamalari (C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE COSTJTUTK^i OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniho&l Shri R. S. Patei, Advocate for ttie peWoner. Shri Utkareh Verma, Depufy Govt. Advocats for STS respondente No. 1 to3. ORDER (Passed on this^ tay of Aprit, 2007) 1. The petMJoner chaftenses ths legality' and validity of the impagned order dated 2S.7.200S (Annexure P/1), issued by the Dsputy Coiiector, for Collector, Dhamtari, addressed to Sie Officer on Specia! Duty, General Administration and Public Grievances Redressa! Departmsnt, Govemment of Chhattisgarh. 2. The indisputable facts in nutehell are that the petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Minister vide letter dated 20.1.2006 (Annexure P/2) that the respondents No. 4 to 20 do not belong to Mahar community.. as.such tftey do not come uneter ttie category of Q^- C^B-iS-^^y Schedulec^Tribs (S.T.)^Theirfamily is knosivn as 'bya mahar' which ^S.t.^ is not a notified(S.T.) community. The Genera! Administration Department vide lettere dated 3.3.2006 and 3.5.2006 directed the Collector to enquire into the facts and submit a report. The Deputy Coiiector for Coilector vide impugned letter dated 28.7.2006 submittedthe report, acscordingly. stating that the respondente No. 4 to 20 belong to Mahar community as ttie caste cei'fificates were issued by the competent officer. 3. Shri R. S. Patel, learned counset appearing for the petidoner submits that the report of the Cottector is contrary to th®provisfons of law as the CoItector/Deputy Cottwtor is not competent to scruBnize ths caste of a particular community as to whether the same is S.C. S.T. O.B.C. or not. The petitroner being immediate neighbour of the respondent No.4 anct others, know the sntire fami!y and their ancestors. They betong to 'b^ mahar' caste which falls in O.B.C. category. For deriving the benefit the respondents No.4 to 20 wi^—5-cti^/ havs obtained false certiflcates ofCS.T) frwi the competent officer, thus the matter bs examined by ths State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. 4. Shri Utkarsh Vsrma. learned Deputy Govt. /yvocateappearing for the respondents/State, per contra, w>u!d submit that the Colteetor is competent to vsrify the genuineness of a caste ceriiffcate, issued by ttie competent authority and it is not necessary to get the sams esaimined by theState Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, the pettBoner should begranted liberty to approach the Committee. ifsoadvised. 5. Having heard teamed counse) for the parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, ,ft is evident that the caste certifteates issued to ttie respondents No. 4 to20 as S.C. was issued by the competent au&iority. This is also not the case of the petitioner that the caste certificates are false one. However, ttie case of the petitioner is ftat if there is any dispute witti r^ard to a caste of a community, ths same should be referred to the Stats Lsvel Caste Scrutiny Committese. The Collector ought to have referrwl the ®:s?Bsa^^®s^suB5s"ss W-—9SS^SS'""9S^ ^^@"7?s^^^'!^^^^^^££^^^:^£i?-^t;^~:;.;rf;":;:'^?^•?/ • i ^'] s. 4-»&^ ^ matter to ths Caste ScruBny Committee before making a reportto the Govemment that the caste certificates issued by the competert authority were correct. 6. In ttie matter of Kumari Madhuri PaSI and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Devetopment and others (AiR 1995 SC 94), the Hon'bte Supreme Court has hek! that ths dispute wfth rsgard to the caste of S.C./S.T./O.B.C. should be decided by the Stats Levsl Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, subsequently, Itie Hon'bteSupreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & ors. V. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. ( 2006 A1R SCW 6093), has observed that only bwause a claim is macte by a person that he belongs to a member of a tribe notified to be Scheduled Tribe in terms of the prowsions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, no immunity in absolute tsrms can be claimed. The makere of e ConstituBon tahl emphasis on equality smongst citizens. Constitution of India provides for protsctivs discrimination and reservE^on so asto enabte the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that<tf the forward community. tf and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of ttie ConstituUon by obtaining the benefite of reservation and other benefits provided under ttre Presidential Order although he is not enGBed thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the soa'sfy but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Consfitution. The Caste Scrutiny Committee can go into the question astowhettier a caste certificate has rightiy been issued or not. The authoriBes concemed were also founct to have some rote to play in finding outthe coiTectness or otheiwise of the claim for issue of a caste cerCficate. ss?"~«^ 3i: 7. In view of the welt s^tled dteta lakl ckwn (supra) by the Hon'bte Supreme Court, ft is deslrabte that the mattsr shoukl be referred to ttie Caste Scrutiny Committee to examine the complaint of the petitfoner, after recording tte ewdence and examining other retevant documents and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. 8. As a result, Uie impugned order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Deputy Collector, for Collector, Dhamtari, should not be given effect to and the matter be referred to ttie Caste ScruBny Committee for conskleration of the complaint of the petitioner, afresh, in accordance with !aw. 9. This petitfon is accordingiy allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Thakur i>- •