IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL &

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE WPA(P) 170 of 2025 The All India Matua Mahasangha & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. N.C. Dey, Adv.

Mr. Arijit Bera, Adv.

Ms. Saika Amrin, Adv. Ms. Zeba Rashid, Adv.

Mr. Maheswar Malo Das, Adv.

For the Respondent No. 6, 7 & 9 : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Afreen Begum, Adv. Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv.

For the Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Shamit Sanyal, Adv.

Ms. Priyakshi Banerjee, Adv.

For the Respondent No. 10 : Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arka K. Nag, Adv.

Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Adv.

Heard On : 27.08.2025 Judgment On : 02.09.2025 Sujoy Paul, J.:

1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to cancel/set aside the SC/ST Certificates issued in favour of private respondents. It is also prayed that a direction be issued to CBI or to any other independent agency to investigate into the fraudulent grant of Caste Certificates to various people during last 15 years.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset informed that the petitioners preferred complaints regarding issuance of Cast Certificate to ineligible persons and upon taking cognizance of such complaints, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer has already initiated proceedings. Thus, said authority may be directed to complete the proceedings.

3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has taken pains to contend that this PIL is maintainable. The PIL is filed in public interest and in addition, an element of public law is also involved in this matter. Thus, this Court can exercise its public law jurisdiction. Reference is made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited and Another reported in (2008) 12 SCC 541.

4. The Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 is relied upon to urge that the concept of locus standi has undergone a sea change and rigid or orthodox rule of interpretation regarding locus standi must be eschewed.

5. Another judgment in the case of Institute of Law, Chandigarh and Ors.

vs. Neeraj Sharma and Ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 720 is referred to canvass that wherever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or commission of the State or by a public authority which is contrary to the constitution or the law, any member of public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action by way of PIL.

6. The next reliance is on an order of Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dipak Mishra dated 26.03.2021 (SLP- Crl Nos. 2669-2670/2021) wherein it was held on 26.03.2021 that merely because the petitioner belongs to a political party, PIL cannot be thrown out. The judgment in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya vs. Subhash Rahangdale and Ors. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 425 is referred in support of the submission that a new dimension needs to the given by the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest. Based on these judgments, it was urged that PIL is maintainable and grievances canvassed are not only confined to the relief relating to “service matter”.

7. Sri Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners have filed copy of the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 (in short “SC/ST Act”) along with the PIL. It is submitted that Section 8A (1)

of this enactment provides the Constitution of “State Scrutiny Committee” for verification of social statues