The court emphasized the importance of verifying and contradicting decisions made by the government and found no element of fraud based on the circumstances at the time of the submission.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This petition has been brought making a prayer to re-call the order dated 18.09.2013, passed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1282 of 2013.

2. Respondent No.1 Shri Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi filed a W.P.(C) No.1282/2013 praying for issuance of various writs, challenging the vigilance enquiry report dated 22.04.2013 and 22.06.2013. On 18.09.2013 Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, representing the State and other parties filed a submission on behalf of the State and other parties duly supported with an affidavit, stating that the State Government has decided to withdraw the vigilance enquiry report dated 22.04.2013 and 22.06.2013 with an intention to conduct a fresh enquiry in terms of decision of the Apex Court rendered in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241 . On the basis of this submission, the Court observed that nothing survives in the petition for adjudication and the petition was disposed of.

3. Mr. U.N. Awasthi, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the petitioners in this case were a party in the case of Collector Bilaspur Vs. Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi, (2012) AIR SC 44 which has been decided by the Supreme Court on 13.10.2011 in that judgment the Supreme Court has considered on the claim made by the respondent No.1 that he belongs to a tribal community, which is known as ''Kanwar'' which is a notified scheduled tribe. The case had been this, that respondent No.1 had obtained the caste certificate from the authorities and had contested the parliamentary election as well as other elections. On complaint filed before the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes challenging the caste status of the respondent No.1, the commission made an enquiry and an order was passed on 16.10.2001, in which it was held that ancestor of the respondent No.1 belonged to Satnami caste, which is a scheduled caste and that grand father of the respondent No.1 had converted to Christianity, therefore, the respondent No.1 had no entitlement to take benefit of the status as certified in the caste certificate, this report was challenged by respondent No.1. The Supreme Court allowed the petition in part in which the enquiry report of the Commission was set-aside and direction was issued to the State Government to constitute a scrutiny committee for verification/screening of the social status certificate issued to the respondent No.1. The Vigilance Cell of High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (in short High Power Committee), which was constituted by the State Government in accordance with the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil''s case (supra), completed the enquiry and submitted report dated 22-23/04/2013. According to that report given by the Vigilance Cell, caste certificate issued to the respondent No.1 was held to be doubtful in nature. The vigilance report so submitted was pending for consideration before the High Power Committee, then the W.P.(C) No.1282 of 2013 was filed by the respondent No.1, in which, the petitioner No.1 was not made a party despite being the fact that he had been the party before the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector Bilaspur Vs. Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi (supra). It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel for petitioner that it was during the pendency of this writ petition for hearing, the submission was made by Shri J.K. Gilda, In-charge Advocate General, on the basis of which, the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 was passed.

4. It is submitted that the In-charge Advocate General made a wrong and illegal submission, which was a concession without authority and instruction given by the State. It is submitted that after the submission of report of Vigilance Cell, High Power Committee was bound to complete the enquiry within a period of two months after completing the procedural formalities in ac