Orissa High Court
Smt. Sunita Jain vs State Of Orissa And Others on 11 December, 2017
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.2217 of 2017
An application under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India.
----------
Smt. Sunita Jain ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others ... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. N.K. Sahu,
B. Swain, P. Swain
For Opp. Party nos.1 to 3 : Mr. B. Behera,
Learned A.S.C.
For Opp. Party no.4 : M/s. S.K. Joshi
----------
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing :11.12.2017 Date of Judgment :11.12.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biswanath Rath, J.In filing this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Annexure-7 passed by the R.D.C.(Southern Division), Berhampur.
2. Referring to the impugned order, taking this Court to the nature of allegation and further taking this Court to the special statute created in the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes 2 and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2011 and the provisions made therein, Sri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the clear provisions contained therein, the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur had no scope for considering such cases. Further, Referring to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act referred to hereinabove and for the specific provisions made therein, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a requirement for constituting a scrutiny committee for verification of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority by the notification in the Official Gazette and unless appropriate scrutiny committee is constituted by the competent authority and matter is investigated by such special committee, any other mode adopted is illegal.
It is under these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding undertaken by the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur is not maintainable and therefore, prays this Court for interfering with the impugned order by setting aside the same.
3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Department and others, as reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, for the provisions contained in the Act, 2011 (supra), though not disputed the contentions of the petitioner that the matter should be taken up by the Committee properly constituted under the Act, 2011 (supra) but taking this Court to the nature of the allegations and the decisions made therein submitted that for taking reliance of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another (supra) by the R.D.C.(Southern Division), Berhampur, there is no 3 illegality committed by the R.D.C.(Southern Division), Berhampur in entertaining such matters.
4. Learned counsel for the private opposite party supported the contentions raised by the learned State Counsel.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the certificate obtained by the petitioner was issued under the provisions contained in the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules and finding some falsehood in obtaining of the certificate by the petitioner a complaint was raised by the private opposite party along with another person involving the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner, which matter being taken up and decided by the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur, the petitioner challenged the authority of the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur in taking up such matters. This aspect having been turned down at the threshold of the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) NO.20942 of 2016, which writ petition was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 3.12.2016 permitting the petitioner to raise the question of maintainability and thereby directed the R.D.C.(Southern Division), Berhampur to consider the question of maintainability of the proceeding before him by way of preliminary objection. The petitioner's move by way of a permission of this Court involving W.P.(C) No.20942 of 2016 having been rejected, resultantly the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and as the R.D.C.(Southern Division), Berhampur while taking up the proceeding has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court involving Kumari Madhuri Patil & another (supra), this Court perused the decision vide AIR 1995 SC 94 and from the whole 4 reading of the decision, it appears, the case involves some allegations involving obtaining of a caste certificate belong to Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste. It is only considering the grievance of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes persons, the Hon'ble Apex Court in sub-paragraph no.4 of the paragraph no.12 directed as follows:
"4. All the State Government shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, 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 of 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."
7. From the reading of the above, this Court finds, the direction contained therein only applies to the allegations involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons. Similarly Committee if any, constituted is required to go through the cases of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it has nothing to do with the cases of S.E.B.C. The case at hand involves obtaining of a caste certificate in the category of S.E.B.C. Such question not being involved in the above decision, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Committee constituted pursuant to the direction contained in AIR 1995 SC 94 has nothing to do with the case at hand. Further, looking to the provisions contained in the Act, 2011 (supra) brought for the purpose, particularly dealing with the cases of S.E.B.C., this Court finds, the Act, 2011 has self contained provisions for considering such allegations particularly under Section 6 of the Act. This Court finds, there is clear provision for constitution of a Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate issued by the 5 competent authorities therein. Since the matter involves S.E.B.C. category, this Court finds, the allegation if any, involving the S.E.B.C. category be considered only by the Committee constituted taking aid of the provisions contained in the Act, 2011.
8. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the R.D.C. (Southern Division), Berhampur had no scope to entertain such matters. Accordingly, this Court while interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure-7, sets aside the same. But, however, looking to the seriousness in the grievance involving the petitioner, it will be open to the State Government to constitute a Committee following the provisions contained in the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2011 as expeditiously as possible and the grievance of the petitioner may be looked into by this Committee giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well as the complainant.
9. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.
.............................
(Biswanath Rath, J.) Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 11th day of December, 2017/Ayas.