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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, J.
Tuni Mallik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 25724 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate, A. K. Sharma, Advocate, M. Dhir, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the scrutiny committee has exclusive jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of caste certificates under the relevant Act.

Headnote:

Caste Certificate - Jurisdiction of Scrutiny Committee - The court held that the scrutiny committee constituted under section 6 of the Odisha Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Castes Certificates) Act, 2012 is empowered to verify the genuineness of caste certificates, and only the scrutiny committee has the authority to inquire into such matters.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the Collector's order directing re-examination of the issuance of his caste certificate, arguing that the Collector lacked jurisdiction and that the scrutiny committee should handle the matter.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Collector's order was without jurisdiction and set it aside, citing the precedent set in Namita Sagaria (supra) where the Co-ordinate Bench held that only the scrutiny committee has the authority to verify the genuineness of caste certificates.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Collector to inquire into the issuance of caste certificates and the authority of the scrutiny committee under the relevant Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of section 6 of the Odisha Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Castes Certificates) Act, 2012, which clearly empowers the scrutiny committee to verify the genuineness of caste certificates.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and quashed, and the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the Collector entered upon the proceeding without jurisdiction. He draws attention to impugned order dated 5th August, 2022 to demonstrate that regarding caste certificate issued to his client, the Collector admitted the case to ask the Tahasildar to produce LCR and issue notice. He submits, authority to enquire is with the scrutiny committee, under section 6 of Odisha Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Castes Certificates) Act, 2012.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, by impugned order, the Collector directed re-examination in respect of issuance of caste certificate to petitioner, in terms of sub-rule (2) under rule 4 in Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Castes Certificates) rules, 2019. In reply, Mr. Rath relies on view taken by Co-ordinate Bench on judgment dated 20th May, 2022, passed in W.P.(C) no.3373 of 2022 (Namita Sagaria vs. State of Odisha and others).

3. View taken by Co-ordinate Bench in Namita Sagaria (supra) is that section 6 makes it clear that only scrutiny committee constituted thereunder is empowered to verify genuineness of caste certificates. In that case the Tahsildar had conducted inquiry and subsequently canceled the caste certificate. Co-ordinate Bench set aside impugned the communication canceling the caste certificate and also observed in paragraph 8 as reproduced below.

    '8. However, if anybody has any grievance relating to the genuineness of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, an appropriate motion as permitted under 'the Act' can be made before the Scrutiny Committee, who in turn can redress such grievance in accordance with law.'

4. Petitioner's case is squarely covered by view taken in Namita Sagaria (supra), with which this Bench respectfully agrees.

5. Impugned order is set aside and quashed.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

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