Point of Law : An aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review, if he could show that a decision of public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage, which in past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and opportunity to comment on such reasons.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. KN. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. JK Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. No one appears for the respondent No. 5.

2. The maintainability of the writ petition is being decided. The issue is whether a writ of mandamus will lie, in the absence of violation of any of the petitioner’s legal or fundamental right.

3. The petitioner was the Superintendent of Police of Karbi Anglong, while the respondent No. 6 was the Superintendent of Police CID in the Assam Police at the relevant time. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent authorities, to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Proceedings against the respondent No. 6/informant and other persons, involved in obtaining the Schedule Tribe (Plains), ST (P), certificate in favour of the daughter of the respondent No. 6, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 should be prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 191, 193 and 195 IPC, i.e., for giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence, for obtaining the ST (P) certificate for her daughter.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that on the basis of FIR dated 04.01.2020, submitted by the respondent No. 6 alleging that the petitioner had outraged the modesty of the daughter of the respondent No. 6, All Woman Police Station Case No. 05/2020 under Section 354 IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view the respondent No. 6 stating that her daughter belonged to the ST (P) category, Section 354(A) IPC r/w 3(1) (XI)(W)(i) & (W)(ii) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was sought to be added to the All Woman P.S Case No. 05/2020. However, vide order dated 21.10.2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4523/2020, it was directed that the provisions of the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “1989 Act”) should not be applied to the All Women Police Station Case No. 5/2020, till the validity of the ST(P) certificate issued to the daughter of the respondent No. 6 was decided by the competent authority. Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, constituted in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), came to a finding by its Speaking Order dated 24.09.2021, that though the daughter of the respondent No. 6, who was allegedly molested by the petitioner was the offspring of a marriage between a tribal (respondent No. 6) and a non-tribal father, who belonged to the “Other Backward Class”, who had expired in the year 2012, there was no evidence that the daughter of the respondent No. 6 suffered social, economic and educational disability. As such, the State Level Scrutiny Committee held that the daughter of the respondent No. 6 did not belong to the Schedule Tribe (Plains) community of Assam.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the Speaking Order dated 24.09.2021, the ST (P) certificate issued to the daughter of the respondent No. 6, by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), was cancelled. He also submits that the provisions of the 1989 Act were accordingly not applied by the Police in the All Women Police Station Case No. 5/2020. He submits that as the ST (P) certificate had been obtained by the respondent No. 6 in favour of her daughter by fraudulent means, action should be taken against the respondent No. 6, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari MadhuriPatil(supra).