State Commission lacks adjudicatory authority; it cannot determine caste or tribe status of individuals or demand caste certificate production.

Order :

ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of order/notice dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 namely Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pendarwa. It is the case of the petitioner that because of some personal animosity, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner before respondent No. 2, impugned notice dated 04.07.2025 has been issued to the petitioner asking to produce her certificate on 24.07.2025 failing which appropriate action will be taken against her.

3. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that notice issued by. respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/1 is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The caste certificate can be verified by the caste Scrutiny Government in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v Commissioner, Tribal Development in (1994) 6 SCC 241 followed with approval in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others in (2011) 10 SCC 357 further followed in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others in (2017) 8 SCC 670 and lastly followed in the matter of The Chief Regional Officer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip and Anr. in (2010) 11 SCC 144 therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.

4. Ms. Nupur Trivedi, learned State counsel and Mr. Jitendra Dhruw, counsel for respondent No.2, would support the impugned notice and submit that it is strictly in accordance with law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Admittedly, petitioner was holding the post of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pendarwa when she was served with the notice which she has earlier replied to stating that permanent caste certificate has been issued in her favour in Scheduled Tribe category, directed but respondent No. to 2- Commission by impugned notice dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), has directed to produce caste certificate of the petitioner, failing which, appropriate action will be taken against her.

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the function of respondent No. 2 Commission, which has been provided under Section 9 of the Act of 1995 as under :-

"9. Functions of the Commission.-(1) shall be the function of the Commission-

(a) to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force;

(b) to recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the tribes or Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

(c) the proper and timely to watch implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes;

(d) to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions;

(e) to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government.

(2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily State be binding upon the Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor."

8. A careful