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

2025 Supreme(Chh) 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
 
Harihar Prasad Parate S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Parate - Petitioners
Versus
Advocate General, State Of Chhattisgarh, High Court Of Chhattisgarh Premises, Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tehsil Belha, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 3341 of 2015
Decided On :   24-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer

The absence of required members in a statutory committee invalidates its proceedings, necessitating adherence to prescribed legal frameworks.

Headnote:

(A) Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 - Section 7(1) - Legality of caste certificate revocation - The petitioner challenged the revocation of his caste certificate by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, asserting it was not duly constituted as required by law. The court found that the absence of key members rendered the committee improperly constituted, thus invalidating the order. (Paras 1, 10, 15)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that when a statutory body is constituted, it must adhere to the prescribed composition and procedures, as failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed as a Peon, had his caste certificate revoked by a committee that lacked the required members during its meeting. The petitioner argued this invalidated the order.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the committee was not duly constituted, leading to the quashing of the revocation order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Scrutiny Committee was properly constituted as per the statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of essential members in the committee invalidated the proceedings, reaffirming the principle that statutory bodies must operate within their prescribed frameworks.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (herein after to be referred to as the “Act, 2013” for brevity) read with notification dated 22.08.2013, by which the petitioners’ caste certificate has been invalidated/revoked.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as ‘Peon’ in the office of the Advocate General on 18.07.2005 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Scrutiny Committee on 04.07.2014 (Annexure P/12), to which he submitted his response on 21.07.2014 (Annexure P/13). Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of a Chairman and two members nominated by the Director/Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Raipur, whereby the petitioner’s caste certificate was revoked and it was held that the petitioner is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013, however, the Vice Chairman - Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the Member Secretary - Commissioner/Director, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur both were not present in the meeting, as such, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee was not duly constituted and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the said Committee is liable to be set aside.

2.3 Return has been filed by the State supporting the impugned order stating that three members consisting of the Chairman and two Members/Deputy Directors nominated by the competent authority as per notification dated 22.08.2013 read with Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013, were already present in the meeting, as such, the impugned order revoking the petitioner’s caste certificate has been passed by the duly constituted High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the Scrutiny Committee was constituted in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013 and vested with power to exercise jurisdiction under the Act, 2013 and since the revocation of the caste certificate has drastic civil consequences upon the status of the petitioner, therefore, it ought to have been exercised by the duly constituted Scrutiny Committee. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramchandra Keshav Adke And Ors v. Govind Joti Chavare And Ors., 1975 (1) SCC 559 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when power is given to a certain thing in a certain way, then it has to be done in that way or it cannot be done at all in the other way and failure to comply with would vitiate the proceeding from the beginning. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground only.

4. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner had participated in the entire proceeding and did not raise any objection in that regard right in time and, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order impugned deserves to be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material availa

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