Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 16 November, 2015
1 WP.5964/2015
Govind Pathak Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
16.11.2015
Shri V.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Additional Advocate General for
the respondent / State.
IA No. 7257/2015 is an application for impleadment. This court by order dated 20th October has directed the petitioner to implead the persons whose names have been mentioned in para 5.1 of the writ petition. The petitioner has not impleaded those persons and has filed an amendment application for impleadment of Director CBI, Union of India and President / Manager High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Resultantly, IA No. 7257/2015 is rejected.
Heard at length on the question of admission. The petitioner before this Court, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Caste has filed this present writ petition stating that frivolous caste certificates have been prepared and they have been issued in favour of certain persons, whose names have been mentioned in para 5.1 of the petition. Certain documents filed along with the petition and Annexure P/7, reveals that the complaint was made before 2 WP.5964/2015 Govind Pathak Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Collector Gwalior in respect of forged caste certificates and names of various persons were brought to the notice of Sub- Divisional Officer Gwalior by submitting application.
Petitioner's contention is that he has submitted aforesaid application during Jan Sunwai. Annexure P/7 is the document signed by SDO Gwalior which has been forwarded to the Collector and the same reveals that the complainant, who has filed the complaint before the Collector, on the basis of a report has been made as an accused and there is an allegation against him that he has chopped off both the hands of a person and he has filed complaint before the SDO only to create pressure on the complainant. Not only this, in the present case it is stated that forged and frivolous caste certificates have been issued. There is a procedure prescribed for issuing caste certificate and after thorough enquiry, caste certificates are issued in the State of M.P. In the considered opinion of this Court, an order cannot be passed directing the Collector not to issue caste certificate in respect of a particular community of a village. Each and every caste certificate has to be processed on merits.
3 WP.5964/2015Govind Pathak Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Learned Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment of (Hari Banshlal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors) reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655. He submits that in the present case the petitioner is alleging that certain persons have obtained caste certificates and are working on various posts. He has further stated that a PIL is not maintainable. This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment.
After considering the averments in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that no such writ can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, admission is declined. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a specific complaint by taking shelter of the provisions of Cr.P.C. in case any forgery is committed by any person. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to take recourse to the other remedies available under the law.
(S.C. Sharma) (D.K. Paliwal)
Judge Judge
sarathe