2023 Supreme(Jhk) 784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

Samri Lal, son of Late Mishri Lal Balmiki - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1583 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2023

Headnote:

WRIT - Caste Certificate - Cancellation - Caste Scrutiny Committee - Guidelines - Kumari Madhuri Patil (1994) 6 SCC 241 - Dayaram (2012) 1 SCC 333 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (2013) 4 SCC 465 - Constitution of India, Articles 341(1), 342(2), 14, 226 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1956 - Presidential Order, 1950 - Evidence Act, Sections 101, 106 - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, Section 6 - Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Vexcel Upkram Private Limited (L.P.A No. 242 of 2022) - Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission (2019 SCC OnLine Pat. 1715) - State of Maharashtra & Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Another (2007) 1 SCC 80 - Chandrabhan v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2021) 9 SCC 804 - Lillykutty v. Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST & Others (2005) 8 SCC 283 - Pournima Suryakant Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2013) 3 SCC 690 - Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board & Others (2018) 10 SCC 312 - Madhusudan v. The State of Jharkhand & Others (2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3038) - Ritesh Tewari & Another v. State of U.P. & Others (2010) 10 SCC 677 - Raj Kumar Soni & Another v. State of U.P. & Another (2007) 10 SCC 635 - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Venkateswara Rao - Asha Sharma vs. Chandigarh Administration and Others (2011) 10 SCC 86 - NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs. NOIDA & Others (2011) 6 SCC 508 - Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Others (2008) 12 SCC 331 - Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from Kanke assembly constituency, belongs to the 'Bhangi (Mehtar)' caste, which was included in the Schedule of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (in short “the Order, 1950”), Part-III- Bihar by virtue of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1956 (in short “the Modification Order, 1956”). Petitioner's caste certificate was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, respondent no. 4- Suresh Kumar Baitha filed a complaint before Caste Scrutiny Committee for cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate alleging that the petitioner is not an original resident of Jharkhand, rather his father had migrated from the State of Rajasthan in search of livelihood. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide order as contained in memo No. 1053 dated 01.04.2022, cancelled his caste certificate treating the same to have been illegally issued.

Finding of the Court:

The Caste Scrutiny Committee did not follow the procedure laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and did not consider the reply and the relevant documents filed by the petitioner. The Committee also did not conduct any inquiry at the place from where the petitioner’s father is alleged to have migrated. The impugned order also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. The Committee was wrong in shifting the initial burden of proof to the petitioner by asking to show documentary evidence that he settled in the State of Jharkhand prior to the year 1950. The preliminary inquiry made by the Circle Officer was also neither proper nor in conformity with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

Issues: 1. Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee followed the procedure laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and considered the reply and the relevant documents filed by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Committee conducted any inquiry at the place from where the petitioner’s father is alleged to have migrated? 3. Whether the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether the Committee was right in shifting the initial burden of proof to the petitioner by asking to show documentary evidence that he settled in the State of Jharkhand prior to the year 1950? 5. Whether the preliminary inquiry made by the Circle Officer was proper and in conformity with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra)?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Caste Scrutiny Committee did not follow the procedure laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and did not consider the reply and the relevant documents filed by the petitioner. The Committee also did not conduct any inquiry at the place from where the petitioner’s father is alleged to have migrated. 2. The impugned order also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The Committee was wrong in shifting the initial burden of proof to the petitioner by asking to show documentary evidence that he settled in the State of Jharkhand prior to the year 1950. 4. The preliminary inquiry made by the Circle Officer was also neither proper nor in conformity with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Cast Scrutiny Committee with directions to constitute a Vigilance Cell in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and to conduct a preliminary inquiry on the complaint of the respondent no.4 and submit a report to the Committee strictly following the procedures laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). If it is found from the report that the caste certificate of the petitioner is illegal, the Committee will issue show cause notice to the petitioner to submit reply, otherwise the Committee will drop the proceeding. The Committee, after receiving reply of the petitioner (if the situation so warrants), will provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 to adduce their respective evidences and to rebut the rival claims. Thereafter, the Committee will pass final order on affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.