Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the decision rendered by the first Respondent holding that the Petitioner had obtained certificates as to tribal status, to which he was not entitled. The first Respondent issued the impugned decision as per the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which came into force as per Notification published in the Gazette of 29.06.2013; hereinafter referred to as 'Act'; for short. Though, declaration was sought that Section 7 of the Act is unconstitutional and void, that relief is not pressed.

2. Different grounds are raised by the Writ Petitioner, impeaching the impugned order. They include criticism of the procedure adopted in issuing the impugned decision; non-adherence of due procedure in terms of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, namely the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013; the 'Rules' for short; the manner in which the first Respondent acted upon the Vigilance Report and the alleged failure to accord opportunity to impeach that report of the Vigilance Team which is criticized as having violated the requirements of the Rules and the Act in collecting data. Institutional malice is also attributed by pleading that the Committee was so reconstituted that it was tailor-made to ensure that the decision making was exclusively in the hands of one person.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed the different grounds which are raised in the writ petition and argued that the impugned order clearly shows that there is no concluded finding to the effect that the petitioner had wrongfully or fraudulently obtained any social status certificate. It is argued that no due opportunity in accordance with law was extended to the Petitioner to present his case. The impugned order is also criticized as one actuated by bias. It is argued on the basis of materials that there was a complete shift in the identity of officers who were manning the High Power Committee and there was a selective exclusion of officers and hand-picked inclusion of persons which ensured that the decision making got controlled by a single individual, though what is provided for by the Act is the collective decision of a Committee constituted and notified for the purpose of the Act. On the basis of the records, it was also argued that the reconstitution of the Committee was not notified or published in the Gazette as required by the Act and therefore the impugned order is one issued without jurisdiction.

4. Before proceeding further, we may herein now record that no person is impleaded in individual capacity as respondent, to meet any personal allegation of having been actuated by bias or mala fides, which require to be answered by any such person individually. We would therefore desist from considering any aspect in that regard though, during the course of arguments, much was attempted to be made out on behalf of the Petitioner in that regard; leading also to rebuttal submissions by those who argued in support of the impugned order.

5. The learned Advocate General presented the files of the Committee and the requisite back files to assist this Court with the official materials which were with the Committee. He, as well as the learned Advocates for the Intervenors argued that the constitution of the High Power Committee is beyond challenge and the fact that the reconstitution was not notified in the Gazette is not a plea taken in the writ petition and therefore such question would not arise. It was also argued that the status of the Vigilance Committee and its report are such that they do not warrant interference at the hands of this Court, more particularly, having regard to