The cancellation of Certificates of Identification was deemed illegal due to violations of natural justice, requiring proper inquiry and opportunity for defense.

JUDGMENT

1. The two Writ Appeals seek to assail the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33 of 2020. W.A. No. 5 of 2022 has been preferred by one Nim Pincho Bhutia (respondent no.6 in the Writ Petition) and W.A. No.7 of 2022 has been preferred by the State of Sikkim and others (respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 in the Writ Petition).

2. The Writ Petition was preferred by Bhim Bahadur Kami and five others, who are respondent nos.1 to 6 in both the Writ Appeals (for convenience they are collectively referred to as the writ petitioners). According to the Writ Petition, Bhim Bahadur Kami was born on 10.02.1949 to late Gumaney Kami and late Echu Maya. The respondent nos. 2 to 6 claim to be the natural sons of Bhim Bahadur Kami.

3. The Writ Petition was filed challenging an order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate in COI Case No. 27/DM/East of 2018 and the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No. 01 of 2020 against the order dated 17.12.2019.

4. The dispute arose in the following manner:

Chhoke Doma Bhutia (respondent no.5 in the Writ Petition) made a complaint to the Additional District Collector on 29.08.2018 alleging that one Gumaney Kami had fraudulently made a Certificate of Identification (COI) in favour of his sons and grandsons. It was alleged that Gumaney Kami was, however, unmarried and no one knew about his family except his brother Kancha Kami. Nim Pincho Bhutia, in his complaint dated 04.09.2018, alleged that Gumaney Kami resident of Sajong Rumtek was unmarried and a bachelor who did not possess any landed properties. His name was, however, enrolled in the Sikkim Subject Register along with his brother Chabilall Kami and two other relatives Sukmaya Kami and Birdamaya Kami. Chabilall Kami died in the year 1970. In the year 1998, Bhim Bahadur Kami applied for issuance of COI claiming to be the son of late Gumaney Kami reflecting his age as 39 years. It was further alleged that Bhim Bahadur Kami had produced Gram Panchayat recommendation of Naitam-Nandok GPU, East Sikkim, for issuance of COI instead of Sajong East Sikkim as Gumanay Kami's Sikkim Subject had been issued from Sajong Block. It was alleged that the East District Collectorate surprisingly issued two COIs vide serial no. 2147/DCE dated 06.10.1998 in the name of Bhim Bahadur Kami, son of late Gumaney Kami, and vide serial no. 3487/DCE dated 27.12.2007 in the name of Bhim Bahadur Rasaily (Biswakarma), son of late Gumaney Biswakarma. It was alleged that after obtaining COI, Bhim Bahadur Kami and his other family members managed to obtain COI in the following manner:

5. It was alleged that there was discrepancy in the surname of the petitioners as well as in the name and surname of Gumaney Kami in the COIs as reflected above. Various other allegations have been made by Nim Pincho Bhutia to submit that the COIs were obtained by Bhim Bahadur Kami and his family members (petitioners) by misrepresenting themselves as son and grandsons of late Gumaney Kami. Nim Pincho Bhutia, therefore, sought for a thorough verification, remedial measures and stringent action if there had been any breach of the laws of the land.

6. The Additional District Magistrate took cognizance of the written complaints filed by Chhoke Doma Bhutia and Nim Pincho Bhutia. The Additional District Magistrate concluded that Bhim Bahadur Kami was not the real or biological son of Gumaney Kami and that he acquired the Certificate of Identification (COI) by misleading the office of the Additional District Collector. Accordingly, Bhim Bahadur Kami's COI bearing serial nos. 2147/DCE dated 06.10.1998 and 3487/DCE dated 27.12.2007, were cancelled. The Additional District Magistrate also directed that all the COIs issued to the sons and descendents of Bhim Bahadur Kami also stood cancelled.

7. The Appellate Authority vide final order dated 13.10.2020 upheld the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Ma