//
you're reading...
legal issues

caste certificate of chief minister of chattisgarh=(Ajit P.K. Jogi) claimed that he belonged to a tribal community known as `Kanwar’, a notified Scheduled Tribe. He obtained social status/caste certificates from time to time, showing him as belonging to Kanwar-Scheduled Tribe, that is, certificate dated 6.6.1967 from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by the Tehsildar, Pendra Road, certificate dated 12.1.1993 by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 11.8.1999 by Naib Tehsildar, Indore, certificate dated 8.1.2001 from the Addl. Collector, Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addl. Collector, Bilaspur. The first respondent was elected twice to Rajya Sabha and contested two parliamentary elections from Raigarh and Shahdol constituencies. He successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and served in that capacity till December, 2002. =The certificates have never undergone a scrutiny by a properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at some point of time, challenging the claim of first respondent that he belongs to a scheduled tribe may not be conclusive as the first writ petition was

Young Bondo girl is headcarrying goods to be s...

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4069 OF 2008

Collector, Bilaspur .........Appellant

Vs. 

Ajit P. K. Jogi & Ors. .......Respondents 

WITH

Civil Appeal No.4074 of 2008

Civil Appeal No.4079 of 2008

Civil Appeal No.4082 of 2008

 J U D G M E N T

R. V. Raveendran J. 

 These four appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment 

dated 15.12.2006 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011. 

As the ranks of parties differ, they are referred to by their ranks in CA 

No.4069/2008. 

 2

2. The first respondent (Ajit P.K. Jogi) claimed that he belonged to a 

tribal community known as `Kanwar', a notified Scheduled Tribe. He 

obtained social status/caste certificates from time to time, showing him as 

belonging to Kanwar-Scheduled Tribe, that is, certificate dated 6.6.1967 

from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984 

by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by 

the Tehsildar, Pendra Road, certificate dated 12.1.1993 by the Naib 

Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 11.8.1999 by Naib 

Tehsildar, Indore, certificate dated 8.1.2001 from the Addl. Collector, 

Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addl. Collector, Bilaspur. The 

first respondent was elected twice to Rajya Sabha and contested two 

parliamentary elections from Raigarh and Shahdol constituencies. He 

successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved 

for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh 

came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and 

served in that capacity till December, 2002. 

3. In the year 2001, the sixth respondent filed a complaint before the 

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the third 

respondent herein, for short `Commission') alleging that the first respondent 

 3

was a Christian and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he 

had obtained several false caste certificates showing him as belonging to 

`Kanwar' Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a constituency 

reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He requested that appropriate action be taken 

in that behalf. 

4. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the first respondent 

proposing to verify his caste certificate. The Commission referred the 

complaint received from the sixth respondent to the Chief Secretary, 

Government of Chhattisgarh on 29.1.2001. The state government (fourth 

respondent) responded to the Commission stating that it had constituted a 

committee dated 27.2.2001 for verification of caste certificates and the 

reference received from the Commission had been transmitted to the 

Principal Secretary, Department for Welfare of SCs, STs, OBCs and 

Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent) for necessary verification through the 

said Committee. The Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary 

of Chhattisgarh to appear before the Commission on 24.1.2001 with all 

documents relating to the caste status of the Chief Minister (first 

respondent). The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled 

Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department to appear on 18.5.2011 

 4

with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by 

the state government relating to verification of caste certificates. He 

submitted that having regard to the provision made by the state government 

for verification of caste certificate by a scrutiny committee, the Commission 

did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate issued to the first 

respondent. The Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from 

the Government of Chhattisgarh and instructed its branch at Bhopal to 

ascertain the correct position and verify the caste claim of the first 

respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected some material to show 

that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste (a backward class) and 

that he did not belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as 

a MLA from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on a false 

caste certificate. On the basis of alleged material so collected, the 

Commission called upon the first respondent, vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to 

offer his explanation and also appear before the Commission on 30.9.2001 

with necessary documents. One Mr. R. N. Sharma, Chief Legal Adviser to 

the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh appeared on behalf of the first respondent 

and submitted a reply dated 12.9.2001 to the notice dated 26.5.2001. Several 

documents were furnished and written submissions were also filed. 

 5

5. The Commission made an order dated 16.10.2001. We extract below 

the preamble and operative portion of the said order : 

 "In the matter of : Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit P.K. 

 Jogi, S/o Shri K.P. Jogi, Village Sarbahra, Tehsil 

 Pendra Road, District Bilaspur. 

 xxxxx xxxxxx

 Taking into consideration the available evidence as discussed above, the 

 commission is of the considered view that Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi has been 

 fraudulently claiming to belong to Kanwar community for the purpose of 

 getting ST certificate, although he and his ancestors belong to Satnami 

 caste, which is included in the SC list of the State. However, as Shri Ajit 

 P.K. Jogi's grandfather appears to have got converted to Christianity, he 

 was not eligible for concessions/benefits available to SCs also. The state 

 government is, therefore, called upon to conduct the verification of 

 genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by Shri APK Jogi and to initiate 

 urgent necessary action for cancellation of his ST certificate and also 

 criminal action as provided in the law and the rules. A report on the action 

 taken may be submitted to the Commission within 30 days." 

6. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by filing WP 

No.2080 of 2001 in the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Division Bench of the 

High Court by the impugned order dated 15.12.2006 allowed the writ 

petition. It held that the complaint of the sixth respondent before the 

Commission questioning the social status of first respondent was politically 

motivated, that the first respondent had been openly claiming the status of a 

person belonging to a scheduled tribe, at least from the year 1967 and had 

obtained several certificates certifying his status and had contested several 

elections as a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, that his status was 

 6

challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988 

and WP No.1039 of 2001 and the said petitions had been dismissed and as 

the decisions of the High Court were judgments in rem, the Commission 

could not have ignored those judgments. The High Court also held that the 

Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as it had collected 

material behind the back of the first respondent and recorded adverse 

findings without disclosing the material collected by it to the first respondent 

and without giving an opportunity to the first respondent, to have his say on 

such material. The court also passed strong observations against the sixth 

respondent stating that the entire exercise was politically motivated. 

Consequently, it allowed the writ petition, quashed the entire proceedings of 

the Commission as also the findings in the order dated 16.10.2001 as being 

void and inoperative. 

7. The High Court also directed the first respondent to pay cost of 

Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent. Further, it directed the State of 

Chhattisgarh and the Commission to file memo of calculations giving full 

details of the actual cost incurred by them in resisting the said writ petition 

and directed the sixth respondent to pay the said cost incurred by the State of 

Chhattisgarh and the Commission. 

 7

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Chhattisgarh has 

filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector, Bilaspur has filed CA No.4069 of 

2008, the sixth respondent filed CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners 

in the High Court filed CA No. 4074 of 2008. On the contentions raised, the 

following questions arise for our consideration : 

 (i) Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain 

 complaints about the genuineness of caste certificate of a particular 

 individual and pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate 

 and the caste status of such person?

 (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that in view of 

 two earlier decisions of the High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988 

 decided on 24.7.1989 and WP No.1039 of 2001 decided on 

 24.7.2001, challenging the caste status of the first respondent, his 

 caste status had attained some kind of finality. 

 (iii) Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on 

 the part of the Commission as held by the High Court?

 (iv) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the 

 proceedings before the Commission at the instance of sixth 

 respondent were politically motivated?

 8

Re : Question (i) 

8. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the constitution of a 

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Article 338A mandates the 

constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant 

point of time, that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and 

the unamended Article 338 provided for a National Commission for 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) of unamended Article 

338 enumerated the duties of the Commission, relevant portions of which 

are extracted below : 

 "(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission---

 (a) To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards 

 provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the 

 Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under 

 any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such 

 safeguards;

 (b) To inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation 

 of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;

 (c) To participate and advise on the planning process of socio-

 economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 

 to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any 

 State; 

 (d) To present to the President, annually and at such other times as the 

 Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards; 

 (e) To make in such reports recommendations as to the measures that 

 should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation 

 of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and 

 socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 

 Tribes and; 

 9

 (f) To discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, 

 welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and 

 Scheduled Tribes as the President may, subject to the provisions of any 

 law made by Parliament, by rule specify.

 (6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each 

 House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action 

 taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the 

 Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such 

 recommendations.

 (7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter 

 with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such report 

 shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be 

 laid before the Legislature of the State along with a memorandum 

 explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the 

 recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for the non-

 acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. 

 (8) The Commission shall, while investigating the matters referred to 

 in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause 

 (b) of clause 5, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in 

 particular in respect of the following matters, namely :--

 (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any 

 part of India and examining him on oath;

 (b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;

 (c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

 (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court 

 or office;

 (e) issuing summons/communications for the examination of 

 witnesses and documents;

 (f) any other matter which the President may by rule determine.

 (9) The Union and every State Government shall consult the 

 Commission on all major policy matters affecting and Scheduled Castes 

 and Scheduled Tribes.

 xxxxxx xxxxxxx"

 (emphasis supplied) 

 10

10. The appellants and the Commission relied upon sub-clause (b) of 

clause (5) of Article 338 which provided that it shall be the duty of the 

Commission to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation 

of rights and safeguards to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, as the 

source of power to the Commission to enquire into and decide upon the 

caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe. It was 

submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled tribes falsely claim the 

status of scheduled tribes, they would thereby be depriving the rights and 

benefits available to genuine scheduled tribes and consequently, when a 

specific complaint is received alleging that any particular person had made a 

false claim of being a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, the 

Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such specific complaint as it 

related to deprivation of rights and safeguards of scheduled tribes. It was 

further argued that it had examined and decided upon the caste status of the 

first respondent, after examining the material collected by it and after giving 

an opportunity to the first respondent to prove that he belonged to a 

scheduled tribe, and it had come to a conclusion that the first respondent had 

fraudulently claimed that he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and 

had obtained false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was 

a Christian, who did not belong to a scheduled tribe and therefore, not 

 11

eligible to enjoy the reservation and other benefits extended to scheduled 

tribes. It was also pointed out that the Commission had ultimately directed 

the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the 

ST certificate obtained by the first respondent and initiate action for 

cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate criminal action in 

accordance with law. 

11. Dealing with the powers of a similar (State) Commission for Women, 

this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State Commission for Women 

[2010 (8) SCC 633], held as under :

 "Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that 

 once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive 

 complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their 

 rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these 

 complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 

 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned Counsel. The provision contained in 

 Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive 

 complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of 

 such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for 

 appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State 

 Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an 

 adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State 

 Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial 

 character or a court." 

12. Dealing with the powers of the Chief Commissioner and 

Commissioners under the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, 

 12

Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and the Rules thereunder, 

this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin - 2010 (4) SCC 

368, held as follows: 

 "It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief 

 Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities 

 Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other 

 interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with 

 certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which 

 include power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume 

 the other powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the 

 provisions of the Disabilities Act." 

13. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the 

Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging 

to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by ensuring : (i) anti-

discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way reservation and empowerment, 

and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 

did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel 

a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate. 

Having regard to the sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the 

Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific 

complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards of Scheduled 

Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire 

into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or State 

Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and 

 13

measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of 

scheduled tribes. This power to enquire into `deprivation of rights and 

safeguards of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes' did not include the 

power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular 

individual. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the 

caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil vs. 

Addl. Commissioner (Tribal Development) - 1994 (6) SCC 241 directed 

constitution of scrutiny committees. 

14. In Madhuri Patil, this Court held that on account of false social status 

certificates being obtained by unscrupulous individuals, and cornering the 

benefits meant for SCs and STs, persons who genuinely belonged to 

scheduled castes/scheduled tribes were denied the benefit of reservation in 

posts/seats and other benefits extended to SCs and STs. It therefore, felt that 

there was a need to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status 

certificate, their scrutiny and approval and issued the following directions : 

 "1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to 

 the Revenue-Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy 

 Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather 

 than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three 

 officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher 

 in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, 

 14

Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, 

and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate 

knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. 

In the case the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate 

knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups 

of tribes or tribal communities.

5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior 

Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of 

Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector 

would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the 

candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or 

city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer 

should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status 

claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He 

also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He 

should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to 

their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social 

status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together 

with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the 

Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and 

ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death 

ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes 

or tribes or tribal communities etc.

6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance 

officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 

"doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director 

concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report 

of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with 

acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational 

institution in which the candidate is studying or employed..........

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably 

by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 

If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or 

spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and 

confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the 

date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the 

parent/guardian and the applicant.

 xxxx xxxx"

 15

This Court thus formulated a scheme for verification of tribal status and held 

that any application for verification of tribal status as a scheduled tribe 

should be carried out by such Committees. The verification of the validity of 

caste certificates and determination of the caste status should therefore be 

done by the Scrutiny Committees constituted as per the directions in 

Madhuri Patil or in terms of any statute made by the appropriate 

government in that behalf. 

15. It is true that the Commission had ultimately directed the state 

government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the scheduled 

tribe certificate obtained by the first respondent and to initiate action for 

cancellation of his scheduled tribe certificate and also criminal action as 

provided in law and submit an action taken report to the Commission within 

30 days. But this is preceded by a very lengthy order which categorically 

records a finding that first respondent had secured a false certificate. The 

order starts with the following caption: "Verification of community 

certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.Jogi". The order discloses that it had summoned 

various senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent to 

produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The order further states 

that it had held independent inquiry through its State office to collect 

 16

evidence to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not 

to Kanwar community. The Commission has dealt with the objection that it 

had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an individual, referred to 

its duties and functions in detail and concluded thus :

 "Thus the Commission is fully empowered to enquire into any complaint 

 relating to bogus community certificate which would otherwise have the 

 effect of depriving the genuine ST candidates from getting admissions to 

 professional courses etc. or appointments to posts reserved for them or 

 from election to the elected bodies from the constituencies reserved for 

 them. Since its inception, the Commission has taken up enquiries in 

 thousands of cases of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly 

 or through its State Offices or the concerned agencies of the State 

 Governments and about 800 such cases are still pending with the 

 Commission which are being pursued.

 x x x x x

 It is therefore clear that the objections raised by the Respondent is not 

 sustainable and the Commission is well within its rights to enquire into the 

 matter to fine the genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri 

 APK Jogi, which enabled him to become an MLA from a constituency 

 reserved for the STs." 

The order then considers the material in great detail and records clear 

finding that the first respondent had obtained a false certificate, vide para 24 

which is extracted below : 

 "Based on the evidence available before the Commission, it is clearly 

 established that Late Shri Girdhari Jogi, while Shri Sinati Jogi and his 

 progeny continued to claim the benefit of being SCs as Satnami caste, the 

 grandfather of Shri A.P.K Jogi, Shri Dulare Jogi and his progeny 

 converted to Christianity and thus became ineligible for the benefits 

 available to the Scheduled Castes. (The genealogical tree of the family is 

 17

 enclosed for ready reference). However, Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, by 

 fraudulently claiming to belong to `Kanwar' community managed to get a 

 ST certificate in 1967 from Additional Tehsildar, Pendra Road. This 

 certificate was not registered in the Revenue records and was thus a 

 legally invalid document Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, who had subsequently joined 

 Indian Police Service and Indian Administrative Service, used his 

 influence to get the community certificate as ST and on his own 

 admission, contented for parliamentary elections and Assembly elections 

 from constituencies reserved for STs." 

16. It is only after recording the said findings, the Commission directed 

the State government to verify the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained 

by first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and 

also initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed above, 

the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other sub-

clauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an 

inquiry in regard to the caste status of any particular individual, summon 

documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If 

such a complaint was received about the deprivation of the rights and 

safeguards, it will have to refer the matter to the State Government or the 

authority concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take necessary 

action. It can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government or 

such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that the complaint is 

inquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or 

the authorities did not take action, the Commission could either itself or 

 18

through the affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that there is a 

proper verification of the caste certificate, but it cannot undertake the 

exercise itself, as has been done in this case. The contention that there was 

sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of 

the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or 

adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties. 

The same is the position even under Article 338A (which was subsequently 

inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with 

identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained. 

The High Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated 

16.10.2001.

Re : Questions (ii) to (iv)

17. This does not mean that the caste certificates of the first respondent 

are not to be verified. The appellants allege that among the certificates 

obtained by the first respondent, the certificates dated 6.6.1967 and 

27.2.1984 were issued by the Naib Tehsildar, who at the relevant point of 

time did not have the authority to issue such certificates. With reference to 

the certificate dated 27.2.1984, it is also contended that the case number 

mentioned pertains to grant of an explosive licence to one Gokul Prasad. In 

 19

regard to certificates dated 6.3.1986 and 12.1.1993, it is pointed out that no 

case number had been mentioned. In regard to the certificate dated 

11.8.1999, it is pointed out that Naib Tehsildar at Indore, was not competent 

to issue such a certificate in regard to a resident of Pendra Road, Bilaspur. In 

regard to certificates dated 8.1.2001 and 20.9.2003 issued by the Additional 

Collector, Bilaspur, it is pointed out that the certificates are not in the 

required form and not in accordance with the relevant guidelines for 

issuance of certificates. It is also alleged that on 8.4.1977, the Addl. 

Tehsildar, Pendra Road had rejected the application of first respondent for 

issue of a certificate showing that he belonged to `kanwar' Scheduled Tribe. 

It is also alleged that father and mother of first respondent had entered into 

sale transactions on 12.8.1964, 21.9.1967 and 25.7.1979 describing 

themselves as Christians and had not sought permission under section 165(6) 

of MPLR Code which was mandatory, if they were tribals. We have referred 

to these averments only to point out that serious allegations were made in 

regard to the certificates obtained by the first respondent and the tribal status 

claimed by him. The certificates have never undergone a scrutiny by a 

properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at 

some point of time, challenging the claim of first respondent that he belongs 

to a scheduled tribe may not be conclusive as the first writ petition was 

 20

dismissed on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact which 

could not be gone into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was 

dismissed on the ground that investigation into the allegations of forged 

certificates was in progress. Therefore even though the Commission was not 

entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding that first respondent did not 

belong to a scheduled tribe, having regard to clause 5(b) and (f) of Article 

338, it had the power and authority to require the State Government or the 

caste verification Committee constituted by the State Government, to 

examine the caste status claimed by the first respondent. The correspondence 

initiated by the Commission clearly showed a request/direction for 

verification of the caste of the first respondent was made by the Commission 

and the state government had responded by stating that the claim of first 

respondent that he belonged to a scheduled tribe and the validity of social 

status certificates would be verified by the Scrutiny Committee. 

18. The High Court was therefore not justified in holding that in view of 

the disposal of earlier writ petitions by the High Court, the dispute relating 

to tribal status of the first respondent had attained some kind of finality. On 

the facts and circumstances, there was also no justification for the High 

Court to either term the application given by the sixth respondent to the 

Commission as politically motivated or direct the State Government and the 

 21

Commission to calculate the actual expenses incurred in regard to the 

inquiry and recover the same from the sixth respondent. 

Conclusion 

19. We therefore allow these appeals in part as under :

(i) The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to the extent it quashes 

the order dated 16.10.2001 of the Commission, is upheld. 

(ii) The adverse observations by the High Court about the complaint by 

the sixth respondent, the inquiry by the Commission, and the stand of the 

State Government and the Collector before the High Court, being politically 

motivated, are set aside. 

(iii) The direction to the State Government and the Commission to 

calculate the actual cost incurred in prosecuting the writ petition and 

directing the sixth respondent to pay the actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set 

aside. 

(iv) In terms of the direction of the Commission, the State Government 

through a duly constituted Scrutiny Committee shall now undertake the 

verification/scrutiny of the social status (tribal) certificates issued to the first 

 22

respondent showing him as belonging to `Kanwar' Scheduled Tribe and 

decide the matter after giving due opportunity to the first respondent, 

uninfluenced by any observations by the Commission, High Court or this 

Court. The State Government/concerned authorities shall be entitled to take 

consequential action on the basis of the order/report of the Scrutiny 

Committee. 

 ....................................J

 [R. V. Raveendran]

 ....................................J

 [H. L. Dattu]

New Delhi; 

October 13, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,913 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: