The cancellation of Certificates of Identification was found illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice principles, reaffirming the validity of previous verifications that established petitioners' rights.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional District Collector, Headquarters, East District, at Gangtok (Respondent No.3), in COI Case No.27/DM/East of 2018 (Nim Pincho Bhutia v. Bhim Bahadur Kami), whereby the Certificate of Identification ( COI ) issued to each of the Petitioners was cancelled. The Judgment/Final Order dated 13-10-2020, issued by the Appellate Authority, Land Revenue & Disaster Management Department (Respondent No.2), upheld the impugned Order supra in Appeal Case No.01 of 2020. The Petitioners are before this Court, assailing both.

2(i). A brief factual narrative is essential for a just determination of the matter. The Petitioners claim to be descendants of one Late Gumaney Kami and his wife Late Echu Maya, the Petitioner No.1 being the son of the said persons, while the Petitioners No.2 to 6 claim to be their grandsons, being the sons of the Petitioner No.1. Gumaney Kami undisputedly was a Sikkimese, holding a Sikkim Subject Certificate (SSC) bearing Sikkim Subject Register Serial No.32, Volume Number II, under Block Sajong, issued on 06-11-1967. As per the Petitioners, around 1943-44, Gumaney married Echu Maya and from the wedlock had four sons and two daughters. From the four sons, two passed away while the youngest son lives in Tadong, Gangtok, the Petitioner No.1 is the other son. That, Gumaney Kami was a Scheduled Caste of the Sikkimese Nepali community known variously by the surnames of 'Biswakarma', 'Lohars' or 'Sunars'. That, 'Kamis' also have several 'Thars' (sub-castes) and Gumaney Kami belonged to the 'Rasaily' (sub-caste).

(ii) The Petitioner No.1 said to be an illiterate villager and a Blacksmith by profession applied for a COI in the year 1998 which was issued to him being COI No.2147/DC/E, dated 06-10-1998, by the Respondent Authorities on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat and Police verification, as mandated by the relevant Notification. Based on the COI of the Petitioner No.1, COI s were issued to the Petitioners No.2, 3 and 6 on 30-08-2006 and Petitioners No.4 and 5 on 31-08-2006. That, on 24-12-2007, the Petitioner No.4 lost his official documents including the COI s of all the Petitioners upon which he immediately lodged an FIR in the Sadar Police Station and the concerned Authorities reissued COI s to the Petitioners on 27-12-2007 on their request.

(iii) That, on 29-08-2018 the Respondent No.5 and on 04-09-2018 the Respondent No.6, filed Complaints, respectively, against the Petitioner No.1 alleging that the Petitioner No.1 fraudulently obtained his COI . A single case based on the two Complaints was evidently registered by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner No.1, being COI Case No.27/DM/East of 2018 and on 11-10-2018 the Petitioner No.1 was summoned to appear before the Respondent No.3 on 24-10-2018. The Petitioner No.4 represented Petitioner No.1 before Respondent No.3. A copy each of the written Complaints were allegedly not made over to him nor was he afforded an opportunity to file his response thereof. The Respondent No.3 after examining witnesses at a 'Panchayat Ghar' which he visited personally for the said purpose, issued the impugned Order, dated 17-12-2019 cancelling the COI s of all the Petitioners with the observation inter alia that the Petitioner No.1 had fraudulently acquired his COI by misleading the Office of the Additional District Collector/District Collector, East. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioner No.1 was before the Appellate Authority with an Appeal on 16-01-2020. The Appellate Authority vide its impugned Judgment/Final Order dated 13-10-2020, upheld the impugned Order dated 17-12-2019.

(iv) It was the further