AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners have filed the present petition
challenging the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by
respondent No. 2 thereby cancelling the caste certificate of
respondent No. 2.
The petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner
No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 by caste is Halbi which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner No. 2 Priya is a
student of Xth Class in Saraswati Shishu Mandir,
Garhakota, Tehsil Garhakota, District Sagar. Addhar Card
was issued in her favour in which her caste Halbi was
mentioned. The father of the petitioner No. 1 Umrao was
having one brother Sunderlal. A sale deed was executed by
Hira Singh and Surat Singh in favour of Sitaram, cousin of
petitioner No. 1 on 13.01.1992 in which also, the caste of
Sitaram was shown as Halbi. Thus, the entire family of the
petitioners are by caste Halbi. An application in the
prescribed format was submitted by the petitioner No. 1 for
issuance of a certificate of Scheduled Tribe in favour of
petitioner No. 2. In the said application, all the particulars
which are required to be submitted in the format
prescribed were submitted by the petitioners. After receipt
of the said application, the petitioners were required to
submit all documents. The same were verified by the
authority concerned and thereafter, the certificate was
issued in favour of petitioner No. 2 certifying that she by
caste is Halbi on 21.09.2015. However, suddenly after a
period of three months, the petitioner No. 1 was called
upon to submit the said certificate in the office of
respondent No. 2, on the ground that by mistake, the same
was issued and petitioners were also directed not to use the
said certificate in any of the Organizations either of the
State Government or of the private, otherwise, the
disciplinary action would be taken against them. The
respondents, thereafter, passed an order dated 21.12.2015
by which the caste certificate issued in favour of the
petitioners were cancelled, on the ground that the same was
obtained by mistake. Being aggrieved by that order, the
petitioners have filed the present petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners argues that before passing the impugned order
dated 21.12.2015, no notice or any opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioners. She further argues that
respondent No. 2 has failed to consider that the petitioner
No. 1 was also granted certificate in the year 1996 and,
therefore, petitioner No. 2 being his daughter ought to
have been granted the said certificate. The certificate
issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 has never been
cancelled. In the school register in Dakhila Panji and the
Aadhar Card, everywhere, the caste of petitioner No. 2 has
been mentioned as Halbi. She further submits that the
Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 has held that
the verification or the cancellation of the caste certificate is
to be done in accordance with the guidelines laid down by
the Apex Court and in the manner prescribed. In the
present case, the respondents have not followed the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The certificate was
issued in favour of petitioner No. 2, on the basis of the
application submitted by the petitioners in prescribed
format. All the necessary documents which were sought
and are required to be attached were accompanied and,
thereafter, the said certificate was issued, therefore, there is
no reason for suppressing the facts. In light of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the order dated 21.12.2015 deserves to be and is hereby set
aside.
The respondents have filed their reply and in
the said reply, the respondents have stated that petitioner
No. 2 being a minor has filed an application for grant of
caste certificate through her father. Along with the said
application, she had submitted only one document i.e. letter
of declaration. The other documents were mandatory
required for issuing a caste certificate has not been
submitted by the petitioner along with her application
form. It has further been submitted that the petitioners by
caste Kosti which comes under the category of OBC.
However, by mistake caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe
was issued in favour of the petitioners on 21.09.2015.
When such mistake was came to the knowledge of
respondent No. 2, he verified the application of the
petitioner No. 2 and found that petitioner No. 2 has not
submitted the all relevant documents as mentioned in the
application and respondent No. 2 has also found that the
petitioner does not belongs to caste Halbi but belongs to
caste Kosti, which comes under the category of OBC,
therefore, she is not entitled for caste certificate of the
category of Scheduled Tribe. To rectify his mistake
respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.12.2015 has
cancelled the caste certificate of petitioner No. 2. The
respondents have further submitted that the petitioners
have an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the
Collector/Upper Collector and thereafter, without availing
the remedy of second appeal before the Divisional
Commissioner and, thereafter, without availing the
alternate remedy to file an application before the State
Level High Power Scrutiny Committee, the petitioners
have directly approached before this Court, therefore, the
said writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
availability of the alternate remedy.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals
that the petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2
has submitted an application for issuance of caste
certificate in favour of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1
belongs to caste Halbi which includes in the Scheduled
Tribe. The application has been submitted in prescribed
format along with the documents. Initially, respondent No.
2 has allowed the application submitted by the petitioners
and granted a certificate in favour of the petitioner No. 2
on 21.09.2015. Thereafter, within a period of three months,
respondent No. 2 had issued an order dated 21.12.2015,
thereby, cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of
the petitioners. Admittedly, before passing the order dated
21.12.2015, no notice or any opportunity of hearing was
given to the petitioners, therefore, the order dated
21.12.2015 is deserves to be set aside only on this short
ground. So far as, availability of the alternate remedy is
concerned, as the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 has
been passed without given any opportunity of hearing,
therefore, in light of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others (1998)
8 SCC 1, the said writ petition is maintainable.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I allow this writ
petition. The impugned order dated 21.12.2015 is hereby
set aside. However, respondent No. 2 is at liberty to pass a
fresh order after issuing show cause notice and giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, with no order as
to costs.