IMPORTANT POINT
A person claiming Scheduled Caste status must provide clear evidence of adherence to Hindu or Sikh religions, as per the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules, and the inquiry process must be thorough and substantiated.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned report under Annexure-1 considered in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 submitted by opposite party No.4 and for a direction to opposite party No.5 to issue a caste certificate in his favour treating him as a 'PANO HINDU' on the grounds stated therein.

2. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the enquiry report received in connection with the proceeding in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019. The contention of the petitioner is that proper enquiry has not been held by opposite party No.4 and therefore, the report dated 22nd July, 2019 should not be accepted. It is claimed that the petitioner's family worship Hindu Gods and Goddess and participate in festivals observed by the Hindu community and that apart, the funeral ceremony is being performed by them according to the Hindu rites with the exception in the practice that the dead bodies are not cremated instead buried. The further contention is that manner in which the enquiry was held by opposite party No.4 is perfunctory with the report submitted in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 which is, therefore, liable to be rejected. While advancing such an argument, the petitioner has relied on the RoRs as at Annexures-2 and 3 besides other materials to show and satisfy the Court that opposite party No.4 fell into serious error in preparing the report i.e. Annexure-1.

3. On the contrary, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 would submit that there has been a detailed enquiry by opposite party No.4, which revealed the petitioner to be a PANO by caste but follower of Christianity. It is contended that the local RI was instructed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report after receipt of request from the petitioner for issuance of Schedule Caste certificate which was by the orders of opposite party No.5 and on the basis of report received, it was rejected by order dated 30th May, 2019 and being aggrieved of, an appeal was filed under Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate(Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe) Rules, 1980 (herein after referred as 'the Rules') before opposite party No.2 and in connection therewith, later to the enquiry report i.e. Annexure-1 of opposite party No.4, the proceeding in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 was disposed of and dismissed vide Annexure-A/2 dated 28th August, 2019. The contention of the State is that opposite party No.4 was directed to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report, whereafter, on receipt of the same, which was held keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Government of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1994 and since the same though revealed the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste but not a Hindu, therefore such a finding was returned confirming rejection in the issuance of caste certificate in his favour, hence, no ground remains to tinker with Annexure-1 which has led to the final decision under Annexure-A/2.

4. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the enquiry was not properly held by taking a stand that the matter relates to opposite party No.5, whereas, an Additional Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi interacted with the petitioner which is not in accordance with the Rules. It is alleged the local RI misused the authority and without any enquiry and evidence collected, submitted the field enquiry report. Furthermore, it is contended that enquiry was held at Paralakhemundi which should have been at his migrated place and alleged bias against opposite party No.4 by claiming that the latter intentionally and deliberately prepared the report in order to harass him. It is further contended that the relevant provisions of the Rules especially with regard to field enquiry have not been adhered to. Referring to the rej