SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Chh) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Rajkumar Daryani, S/o. Atmaram Daryani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, General Administration Department, Raipur, (CG) & Ors. - Respondents
WPC No. 4108 of 2007
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vipin Punjabi.
For the Respondents:Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Pawan Shrivastava.

Headnote:

Caste Certificate - Scheduled Caste - Article 341, 342 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for a caste certificate, the rejection of the claim by the Sub Divisional Officer, and the legal provisions under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the requirement for evidence to demonstrate the petitioner's caste as Scheduled Caste, the authority of the President of India to specify Scheduled Castes, and the inability of courts to modify or vary the Scheduled Castes Orders.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a direction to issue a caste certificate and to quash the rejection order. The petitioner claimed to belong to the Suryavanshi caste, a Scheduled Caste, based on his father and grandfather's caste. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the claim, citing the petitioner's residence in Sindh prior to 1950 and the absence of evidence of Scheduled Caste status in Sindh.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of his caste's Scheduled Caste status in Sindh and that the President of India has the authority to specify Scheduled Castes. The court also emphasized that courts cannot modify or vary the Scheduled Castes Orders.

Issues: The issues included the petitioner's claim for a caste certificate, the rejection of the claim by the Sub Divisional Officer, and the legal provisions under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to provide evidence of his caste's Scheduled Caste status in Sindh and the specific bar on courts to modify or vary the Scheduled Castes Orders led to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate his caste's Scheduled Caste status and the court lacked the authority to modify or vary the Scheduled Castes Orders.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner and also to quash the order dated 10-5-2007 (Annexure P/36) by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of permanent caste certificate has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from record are that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ respondent No.3 on 19-10-2004 for grant of Schedule Caste Certificate to his son Sunil Daryani as he belongs to Suryavanshi caste which is Scheduled Caste on the count that his father and grand-father belong to Scheduled Caste. It is further reflected from record that the petitioner for obtaining the above caste certificate has produced certain documents in support of his claim. The petitioner has also annexed caste certificate issued by Ramji Ram, Lok Sabha member in favour of the petitioner’s father Dr. Atmaram Daryani (Annexure P/8). It is also case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached many times to the office of SDO, Revenue – respondent No.3 for issuance of caste certificate, but it has not issued in his favour, therefore, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 24-7-2005 to respondent No.3 for issuing the caste certificate in favour of petitioner’s son, thereafter the petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Secretary of the State Government regarding non-compliance of the order, but no action has been taken therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5317 of 2005 before this Court for issuance of a direction to issue caste certificate as the proceedings are pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Sakti and respondent No.4.

3. It has also been contended that this court vide its order dated 9-11-2005 directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to decide the Revenue case and pass an order in accordance with law. This order has not been complied with, therefore, the petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 2006, wherein this court had issued notice to the respondents on 3-2-2006. During pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents have passed the order on 15.12.2005 by recording its finding that the petitioner is resident of Sindh Provinces prior to 1950 as such he does not belong to Schedule Caste of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, he is not entitled to get caste certificate. The respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste certificate has taken into consideration the circular dated 28-7-2003 issued by the General Administration Department of Chhattisgarh Govt. Raipur, according to which the petitioner was not a resident prior to 1950 of Chhattisgarh State, therefore, caste certificate cannot be issued to him. It is also contended that this Court vide order dated 7-5-2007 in contempt (civil) petition No.16/2006 directed the respondents that the respondents after hearing the petitioner shall pass an appropriate order as directed by this court in writ petition No 5371 of 2005 dated 9-11-2005 without being influenced by any of the orders passed earlier.

4. The respondent has passed the order on 10-5-2007 (Annexure P/35) by recording its finding which reads as under :

^^;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk jketh jke] laln lnL; }kjk izLrqr izek.k&i= ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd vkosnd ds firk Jh vkRek jke vk- Jh ukudjke fuoklh lDrh dks tkjh lwjtoa'kh (Suraj-Bansi) fy[kk x;k gS] tcdh Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh lwph esa Surjyabanshi vf/klwfpr gSA vr% Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk tkjh lwph ,oa ekuuh; laln }kjk tkjh izek.k&i= esa 'kCnksa esa fHkUurk gS] lkFk gh lafo/kku dh /kkjk 342 ¼1½ rFkk 341 ¼1½ ds varxZr vuqlwfpr tu tkfr @ vuqlwfpr tkfr dh ?kks"k.kkvksa ds ckjs esa fo'ks"k /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd jk"Vªifr ds vkns'k ls tkjh lwph esa lfEefyr uke dh tkfr@lewg@oxZ dks gh tu tkfr@tkfr ekuk tkosxk vFkkZr mlds i;kZ;okph ;k leukFkhZ ;k vU; izdkj ds uke ls Hkh ekU;rk ugha gksxhA

izdj.k esa izLrqr mijksDr rF;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top