Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 May, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5768 of 2022
Sanjay Das ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Election Commissioner, State Election Commission, Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The 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, Dhanbad
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad
7. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Dhanbad
8. The Circle Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad
9. Arjun Bhuiyan ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, AC to SC-III For State Election Commission : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate Ms. Niharika Nidhi, Advocate
-----
Order No. 03 Dated: 03.05.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to correct the designation of the respondent no. 3 as "The Caste Scrutiny Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi".
Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of issuance of direction upon the State respondents to forthwith make an enquiry of the documents on the basis of which scheduled caste certificate of caste „Mushar‟ has been issued to the respondent no. 9 by the respondent no. 8 - the Circle Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad and after enquiry to declare that the caste certificate issued to the respondent no. 9 is not genuine and he is not entitled to get the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to supplementary affidavit dated 08.12.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner and submits that before filing of the writ petition, an application in this regard was sent by the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jharkhand through registered post (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the present supplementary affidavit), however, no action was taken on the same. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no. 3 may be directed to take appropriate decision on the same.
3. As against this, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned SC-III appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submits that it is not clear as to whether the said application sent by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 through registered post has been received and hence, if the petitioner prefers a fresh application in this regard before the respondent no. 3 along with the relevant documents, an appropriate decision in accordance with law will be taken.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that such matter should be taken up for consideration by the Caste Scrutiny Committee at the first instance.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application in this regard before the respondent no. 3 along with relevant documents. 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 enquiry, shall take an appropriate informed decision, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of the said application.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish