JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Hooghly cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioners and the order passed by the appellate authority being the Additional District Magistrate (LR), Hooghly affirming the cancellation, both are under challenge in the instant writ petition.

2. The petitioners are full blooded sisters. They claim Scheduled Tribe reservation with the sub-caste Gond. The petitioners, in support of reservation, rely upon the recording of the caste GOUD

(typed in Bengali language) in the deed of sale executed on 1st December, 1947 where her paternal grandfather was one of the parties.

3. It has been contended that the pre-independence document relied upon by the petitioners carries high evidentiary value and the same ought not to be ignored/overlooked by the authority and relying on the same, the reservation benefit ought to be granted in favour of the petitioners.

4. It has been submitted that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners were permanent residents of the said place for more than eighty years and her family members practise the religion and the customs of the said sub-caste.

5. The petitioners rely upon the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 in support of the submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer does not have the power to cancel/revoke/set aside the caste certificate that has been issued in her favour. As the said certificate was not obtained either by suppression of material fact or by practising forgery, the Sub- Divisional Officer is not the competent person to set aside/revoke the caste certificate of the petitioners.

6. The petitioners contend that the cancellation, if any, can be made only by the State Scrutiny Committee. A decision has to be taken by the Scrutiny Committee and only after the Committee is satisfied that the certificate was obtained by any person furnishing any false information or upon misrepresentation of fact or by suppressing any material information or by producing any document which is an act of forgery, the Committee can issue direction to the certificate issuing authority to cancel or revoke such certificate.

7. There is no case made out by the appellate authority that the petitioners obtained the said certificate either by suppressing material facts or by practising forgery or misrepresentation and accordingly, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer affirmed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside. Principle of natural justice was not followed at the time of passing the order impugned.

8. The petitioners rely on the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 10th January, 2020 in the matter of Krishnapada Sardar & Anr. –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. wherein the Court was pleased to direct that the impugned order of cancellation of the reservation certificate was de hors the laws and cannot be permitted to stand.

9. The Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer does not have the power to cancel/ impound or revoke the caste certificate and the same can be done only by the State Scrutiny Committee. As in the instant case, there has been no reference to the State Scrutiny Committee and the Sub-Divisional Officer invoked the jurisdiction to set aside the caste certificate, as such, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order of the appellate authority affirming the same, are liable to be set aside and quashed by the Court.

10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Community reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 wherein the guidelines to be followed at the time of issuance and cancellation of caste certificates have been recorded.

11. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of cancellation of the caste certificates passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the order of the appellate authority affirming such