The cancellation of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate should be preceded by providing an opportunity of being heard, and evidence is required to determine tribal status in cases of inter-caste marriages or offspring born from a tribal woman and a non-tribal man.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Taye, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.05.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 331(AP)/2016, by which the learned Single Judge has upheld the cancellation of the appellant''s Scheduled Tribe Certificate, issued on 26.05.1982.

3. The brief facts of the case is that a Scheduled Tribe Certificate was issued to the appellant on 26.05.1982 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Sing District, Pasighat. The same was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 05.05.2016, on the ground that the appellant''s father, Shri Dipu Bhattacharjee did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe recognized in Arunachal Pradesh. The order dated 05.05.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner also states that as per the letters dated 06.05.1991, 05.12.1992 and 30.07.2010, " if an APST woman is married to a non-APST man, her offspring shall not be entitled to obtain Scheduled Tribe Certificate". Thereafter, the order dated 05.05.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the appellant vide WP(C) No. 331(AP)/2016. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned order dated 16.05.2019 by holding as follows:

"Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that the father of the petitioner, ShriDipuBhattacharjee, does not belong to Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe would be evident from the "All India Higher Secondary (Three year course) Examination, 1978" certificate of the writ petitioner, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education to the writ petitioner, dated 31.08.1978, annexed as Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition, wherein, the father''s name of the writ petitioner has been reflected as DipuBhattacharjee.

On perusal of the certificate annexed as Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition, submission made by Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, is accepted. If the father of the writ petitioner, namely, DipuBhattacharjee, does not belong to Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe, the writ petitioner cannot be said to be an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe.

In view of the above, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 05.05.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat, vide No. J-4311/ST/ENQ/2016/313, whereby, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to the writ petitioner has been cancelled.

For the reasons and discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit."

4. The appellant''s counsel has made a challenge to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the appellant, prior to the order dated 05.05.2016 being passed, by which the appellant''s Scheduled Tribe Certificate had been cancelled. The appellant''s counsel also submits that Sh. Dipu Bhattacharjee is the late step father of the writ petitioner/appellant.

5. Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the same has been passed in consonance with the letters dated 16.05.1991 and 15.12.1992 issued by the Secretary (Political), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.He also submits that the fact that Sh. DipuBhattacharjee is the father of the appellant/petitioner is evident from the "All India Higher Secondary (Three year course) Examination, 1978" Certificate, issued to the appellant by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 31.08.1978. He accordingly submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge should be upheld.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. From a perusal of the records, it is clear that prior to the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 being issued by the Deputy Commissioner, cancelling the appellant''