2018 Supreme(Tri) 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
Ajay Rastogi, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Sri Partha Das @ Partha Kumar Das Son of Late Paresh Chandra Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura (to be represented by the Commissioner-cum-secretary, Department for Welfare of SC’s and OBC’s and Ors. – Respondents
WA No. 110 of 2012
Decided On : 09-10-2018

The burden of proof is on the person who claims to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to prove his or her caste or tribe status.

Headnote:

TRIBUNAL - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - CANCELLATION OF CASTE CERTIFICATE - JURISDICTION - PROCEDURE - BURDEN OF PROOF - FALSE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE - COMMUNITY STATUS - VERIFICATION - REPORT OF VIGILANCE CELL AND SUB-COMMITTEE - CONSIDERATION - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - FINDINGS OF FACT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT JURISDICTION - DISCRETION - DISHONEST LITIGANT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly, obtained a caste certificate as a member of the "Jalia Kaibarta" community, a recognized Scheduled Caste in Tripura. A complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner had obtained the certificate by misrepresentation of facts. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted an inquiry and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in the High Court, which directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to transmit the case record to the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC). The SLSC referred the matter to the vigilance cell for verification of the petitioner's caste status. The vigilance cell submitted a report stating that the petitioner belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community. However, the SC Welfare Sub-Committee of the Agartala Municipal Council expressed doubts about the petitioner's caste status. The SLSC issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and gave him an opportunity to prove his caste status. The petitioner submitted a representation and appeared before the SLSC along with witnesses. The SLSC also considered the report of the vigilance cell and the opinion of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee. After considering all the evidence, the SLSC cancelled and confiscated the petitioner's SC certificate.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the SLSC had jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's SC certificate. The procedure followed by the SLSC was in accordance with the law. The burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove that he belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The report of the vigilance cell was not credible as the investigating officer did not furnish any supporting documents to prove that the petitioner belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community. The SLSC was justified in relying on the opinion of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee. The SLSC had given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to prove his caste status. The findings of fact recorded by the SLSC were based on evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court could not sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence. The High Court could only examine whether the prescribed procedures were followed and whether there was any perversity in arriving at the decision. In the present case, the SLSC had followed the prescribed procedures and there was no perversity in its decision. The petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands and was not entitled to any relief.

Issues: 1. Whether the SLSC had jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's SC certificate? 2. Whether the procedure followed by the SLSC was in accordance with the law? 3. Whether the burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove that he belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community? 4. Whether the petitioner discharged this burden? 5. Whether the report of the vigilance cell was credible? 6. Whether the SLSC was justified in relying on the opinion of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee? 7. Whether the SLSC had given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to prove his caste status? 8. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the SLSC were based on evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity? 9. Whether the High Court could sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence? 10. Whether the High Court could only examine whether the prescribed procedures were followed and whether there was any perversity in arriving at the decision? 11. Whether in the present case, the SLSC had followed the prescribed procedures and there was no perversity in its decision? 12. Whether the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands and was not entitled to any relief?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The SLSC had jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's SC certificate under Rule 6 of the Tripura Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992. 2. The procedure followed by the SLSC was in accordance with Rule 7A of the Tripura Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992. 3. The burden of proof was on the petitioner to prove that he belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community under Section 11 of the Tripura Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Reservation Act, 1991. 4. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden as he could not produce any cogent evidence to prove his caste status. 5. The report of the vigilance cell was not credible as the investigating officer did not furnish any supporting documents to prove that the petitioner belonged to the Jalia Kaibarta community. 6. The SLSC was justified in relying on the opinion of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee as it was a valid report having statutory force under the relevant Rules. 7. The SLSC had given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to prove his caste status by issuing a show cause notice, allowing him to submit a representation, and giving him an opportunity to appear before the Committee along with witnesses. 8. The findings of fact recorded by the SLSC were based on evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity. 9. The High Court could not sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence as it was not its function to do so. 10. The High Court could only examine whether the prescribed procedures were followed and whether there was any perversity in arriving at the decision. 11. In the present case, the SLSC had followed the prescribed procedures and there was no perversity in its decision. 12. The petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands as he had obtained the SC certificate by misrepresentation of facts and was not entitled to any relief.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's intra court appeal.