SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 36

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
L. C. Bhadoo, J
Ajit P. K. Jogi v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Others
Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2001 | I. A. No. 5320 of 2001 | I. A. No. 5527 of 2001



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vivek Tankha, Manindra Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Jog Singh, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Rohit Arya, H. N. Vyas

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lacks jurisdiction to investigate individual caste status claims, which violates natural justice principles.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - The petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, challenges the Commission's findings claiming he does not belong to said Tribe. The petitioner seeks to quash the Commission's report dated 16-10-2001 as void. The Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate individual caste status claims. (Paras 4, 11, 21, 38)

(B) Natural Justice - The Commission conducted inquiries without notifying the petitioner, infringing principles of natural justice and fair play. (Paras 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested elections as a member of a Scheduled Tribe and had received caste certificates, but faced allegations of fraudulent claims made by a political rival. Several court petitions on this matter were dismissed prior.

Findings of Court:
The Commission’s report lacked jurisdiction and violated natural justice principles, rendering the findings void and inoperative.

Issues: The principal questions were the Commission's jurisdiction to question an individual's caste and whether the proceedings violated natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the Commission cannot decide individual caste status based on constitutional provisions and emphasized the need for fair procedure and notification to interested parties.

Result: Petition allowed; the Commission's findings quashed, costs awarded.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed against commission findings (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observations on the commission's actions (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments on jurisdiction and natural justice (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. jurisdiction of the commission under article 338 (Para 17 , 19 , 27)
5. determination of powers of the commission (Para 18 , 36)
6. conclusion and order to quash commission's findings (Para 38 , 39)

1. This writ petition preferred under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proceedings of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the first respondent herein registered in file No. 2 / FCS 2/2001 - SSW - 1 and the 'findings' contained in the report dated 16-10-2001. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned proceedings by writ of certiorari and also prayed for a writ of mandamus to declare the findings contained in the report dated 16-10-2001 as void and inoperative. In addition, the petitioner has sought for a direction restraining the respondents from conducting any proceeding or taking any action pursuant to the complaint filed by the sixth respondent herein or the impugned findings of the first respondent - Commission.

2. The facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition may be noted in the first instance and they, as stated by the petitioner himself, in brief, are as follows:
The petitioner belongs to a Tribal Community known as 'Kawar / Kanwar' which is notified as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The petitioner's forefathers were resident of a Tribal Hamlet called Jogi Dongari in village Sarbahara, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur which is predominantly inhabited by Tribals. As far back as in the year 1967 a social status / caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent officer i.e. Naib Tahsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur certifying the petitioner as a member of Kanwar Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, similar certificates have also been issued to the petitioner, from time to time, by competent authorities. The petitioner was twice elected to Rajya Sabha and contested two Parliamentary elections from Raigarh and Shahdol Parliamentary constituencies. He was successfully elected from 'reserved' constituency of Raigarh. The petitioner successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha Constituency in the year 1991 which is a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. In the past, due to political motivation and out of vendetta, some disgruntled persons falsely and frivolously trying to raise question regarding the petitioner's social status, filed a writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Bench Indore vide Misc. Petition No. 1417 of 1988 which came to be decided by a Division Bench of that Court on 24-7-1989, dismissing the writ petition. Again, a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1039 of 2001 was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and that writ petition was also dismissed by learned Single Bench of that Court vide order dated 24-7-2001 on merit with exemplary cost of Rupees Ten Thousand. Copies of both judgments are annexed to the writ petition as Annexure - P / 1 and Annexure - P / 2, respectively.

3. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a letter No. 2 / SCS - 2/200 - SSW - 1 dated 29-8-2001 from the Joint Secretary of the first respondent - Commission, referring to an earlier letter dated 26-7-2001 of the Chairman of the first respondent - Commission, proposing to investigate and enquire into the allegations made by the sixth respondent in his complaint made to the first respondent - Commission that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community but had contested the election to Vidhan Sabha from Tribal Constituency, Marwahi in the year 2001 and that the petitioner obtained a false Scheduled Tribe Certificate.

4. The petitioner on receipt of the above letter dated


























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top