Back
2013 Supreme(Tri) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Bidyut Debbarma - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 74, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 94, 95, 106, 107, 289, 397, 402, 404, 409, 428 and 465 of 2006Decided On : 25-11-2013
For the Appellant :P. Roy Barman, B. Saha and P. Datta, Advocates
For the Respondents:T.D. Majumdar, G.A., S. Chakraborty, Addl. G.A., D.R. Chowdhury and S. Datta, Advocates
Principles of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing relevant evidence, that the evidence of the opponents should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses examined by other party, and that no material should be relied on against him without he is being given an opportunity of explaining them.
Headnote:
CANCELLATION OF CASTE CERTIFICATES - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD NOT AFFORDED - CANCELLATION ORDERS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe 'Tripuri' community of the State of Tripura, were issued Caste Certificates by the competent authority after proper inquiry, as per rules. However, the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) issued Show Cause Notices to the petitioners alleging that they belonged to the 'Laskar' community and not the 'Tripuri' tribe, and that they were not recognized as original tribe of the State. The petitioners submitted Show Cause replies and requested for copies of the materials on the basis of which the inquiry report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell, but the SLSC, without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to be heard, cancelled their Caste Certificates. The petitioners contended that the SLSC mechanically passed the cancellation orders without considering the documents submitted by them along with their Show Cause replies and that the orders were liable to be set aside and quashed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the SLSC violated the basic principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard before cancelling their Caste Certificates. The Court noted that the petitioners had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the Vigilance Cell submitted the report, but no such opportunity was given. The Court also noted that the SLSC did not consider the documents submitted by the petitioners along with their Show Cause replies. The Court further held that the SLSC had taken a double standard role by finding the Caste Certificate of one Santanu Debbarma, who belonged to the same clan as the petitioners, to be genuine, while cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners on the basis of the same materials.
Issues: 1. Whether the SLSC violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard before cancelling their Caste Certificates? 2. Whether the SLSC erred in not considering the documents submitted by the petitioners along with their Show Cause replies? 3. Whether the SLSC took a double standard role by finding the Caste Certificate of Santanu Debbarma to be genuine, while cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners on the basis of the same materials?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the SLSC violated the principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard before cancelling their Caste Certificates. The Court noted that the petitioners had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the Vigilance Cell submitted the report, but no such opportunity was given. The Court also noted that the SLSC did not consider the documents submitted by the petitioners along with their Show Cause replies. The Court further held that the SLSC had taken a double standard role by finding the Caste Certificate of one Santanu Debbarma, who belonged to the same clan as the petitioners, to be genuine, while cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners on the basis of the same materials. The Court relied on the following principles of law: 1. Principles of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing relevant evidence, that the evidence of the opponents should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses examined by other party, and that no material should be relied on against him without he is being given an opportunity of explaining them. 2. The right to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the inquiry officer by not giving to the officer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would be that inquiry had not been held in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
Final Decision: The Court set aside and quashed the cancellation orders passed by the SLSC and the SDM, Kailashahar.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. Common question of law is involved in all the 17 (seventeen) writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noted above, and on the prayer of learned counsel of both side, all the writ petitions were taken up together and were heard analogously and this common judgment shall govern all the cases. Out of the aforementioned writ petitions, WP(C) No. 397 of 2006 was heard on 30.09.2013, WP(C) No. 106 of 2006 and 107 of 2006 were heard on 01.10.2013 and on similar prayer of learned counsel of both side, those writ petitions were also taken up along with the rest 14 writ petitions which were heard on 26.09.2013, are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for all the writ petitioners except WP(C) No. 106/06 and 107/06 and in those two cases learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta has been heard for the petitioners. Also heard learned G.A., Mr. T. Datta Majumder for the State respondents in all the writ petitions and learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Chowdhury for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in WP(C) No. 404 of 2006 and learned counsel, Mr. S. Datta for the respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 82 of 2006.
3. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, contended that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe 'Tripuri' community of the State of Tripura and the competent authority in due course after proper inquiry, as per rules, issued the Caste Certificates in favour of the petitioners. Their forefathers belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and they got the document to show that their fore-fathers were having with Scheduled Tribe status since before independence.
4. The petitioners contended that the respondent Member Secretary of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, issued Show Cause Notice alleging that the petitioners and their forefathers belonged to 'Laskar' community and that their forefathers does not belong to the 'Tripuri' tribal community of the State of Tripura and that they were migrated from a place named 'Mogra', now Bangladesh, to the State of Tripura and settled in the princely State of Tripura. They were termed as 'Deshi Tripuri' belonged to 'Laskar' community and were not recognized as original tribe of the State.
Along with the Show Cause Notice in almost all cases, the petitioners were served with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell of the Govt. of Tripura and the petitioners submitted show cause reply in writing demanding copies of the materials, on the basis of which the inquiry report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell. In some of the cases the Vigilance Cell submitted their report on the basis of some statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry but in some cases no such statement of witnesses was recorded by the Vigilance Cell. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, SLSC), based on the reports, submitted by the Vigilance Cell, cancelled the Caste (ST) Certificates of the petitioners without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. The petitioners contended that along with the show cause reply, they submitted documents and also prayed for affording scope to cross examine the witness on the basis of the statement of whom the Vigilance Cell submitted report and also prayed for affording opportunity to give evidence. But the SLSC without affording any opportunity, violating all norms and principles of natural justice, cancelled the Caste Certificate of the particular petitioner and by a separate forwarding letter communicated the cancellation order, passed by SLSC, to the petitioners. Brief fact of the case of each of the petitioners may be summarised as follows:-
(i) In WP(C) 74 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 26.06.1974 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.
