Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Savitri Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 April, 2023

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                       1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(C) No. 5766 of 2022
                                      ---

     Savitri Devi                                 ...     ...     Petitioner
                                       Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. Caste Scrutiny Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

4. The Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bundu, District- Ranchi

7. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Ranchi

8. The Circle Officer, Rahe, District- Ranchi

9. Nav Krishna Lohara .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahato, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 3 to 8 : Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. A.R. Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate, M/s. Ankit Kumar, Aditya Kumar & Shilpi Shandil Gadodia, Advocates Order No. 03 Dated: 26.04.2023 I.A. No. 3496 of 2023 The present interlocutory has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for substituting the words "Lohara/Kamar" mentioned in paragraph-1 as well as prayer portion of the writ petition with the words "Lohar/Kamar". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph-1 as well as prayer portion of the writ petition, the words "Lohara/Kamar" have wrongly been typed in place of "Lohar/Kamar". Since the same is a typographical mistake, the petitioner may be permitted to substitute the words "Lohara/Kamar" with the words "Lohar/Kamar" in paragraph-1 as well as prayer portion of the writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the petitioner is permitted to make the aforesaid correction in the relevant part of the writ petition in course of the day.

I.A. No. 3496 of 2023 stands disposed of.

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, let the designation of respondent no. 3 be corrected as "Caste Scrutiny Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi".

2. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition.

3. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, confines the prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to forthwith make an inquiry of the documents of the respondent no. 9 on the basis of which caste certificate of "scheduled tribe" has been issued to him by the respondent no. 8 and after inquiry to hold that the said certificate issued to the respondent no. 9 is invalid as he actually belongs to 'Lohar/Kamar' caste which has not been included in the list of scheduled tribes for the State of Jharkhand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main reason for challenging the caste certificate of "scheduled tribe" issued to the respondent no. 9 is that it would appear from the Khatiyan of his ancestors appertaining to Khata No.-57, Thana No.-44, Mouza- Dhanamunji, Thana-Silli that the surname of his ancestors has been mentioned in the same as "Kamar" and their caste as "Lohar".

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 9 has managed to get the caste certificate of "scheduled tribe" issued in his name on the basis of forged documents, pursuant to which he also filed the nomination form for contesting the election for the post of 'Mukhiya' of Bansiya Panchayat and also got elected.

6. Mr. J.F. Toppo, learned G.A.-V appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 8, as well as Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, jointly raise preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner has primarily challenged the issuance of caste certificate of "scheduled tribe" in favour of the respondent no. 9, he instead of filing the present writ petition should have approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jharkhand on the said issue.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has mainly challenged the caste certificate of "scheduled tribe"

issued to the respondent no. 9 by the respondent no. 8, this Court is of the view that the said issue is required to be considered by the respondent no. 3 (Caste Scrutiny Committee) at the first instance.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application before the respondent no. 3 seeking challenge to issuance of the caste certificate of "scheduled tribe" to the respondent no. 9. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no. 3, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 9 and on making due inquiry, shall take an appropriate informed decision in this regard preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said application.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/