ORDER

30.08.2022 Date :

Heard Mr. A. Apang, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. A short question is required to be answered in the present writ petition in which, the petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 08.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, by which the Certificate of Schedule Tribe has been cancelled.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a chequered history including the fact that the present Certificate was issued prior to 1950, i.e. prior to coming in force of the Presidential Order, 1950 regarding SC/ST.

4. It is contended that the ancestors of the petitioner are from Namsai in Arunachal Pradesh and have nothing to do with the Deori community of Assam, which is also a Schedule Tribe. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner has also retired from his service as Assistant Agriculture Development Officer. However, due to some personal vendetta, a direction was given by the then Chief Secretary pursuant to which, the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 has been passed by cancelling the Schedule Tribe Status.

5. Mr. Apang, the learned senior counsel had urged a number of grounds to support his prayer including the ground of non following of the procedure of such cancellation by giving adequate opportunity and as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Ors Vs Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and Ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. The learned senior counsel accordingly submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General however, has resisted the prayer by contending that the petitioner may not have an enforceable case on the merits of the dispute, as Deori community is not recognized as a Schedule Tribe in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The learned Additional Advocate General however, has clearly admitted that before cancellation of such certificate, the procedure which has been prescribed in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), apparently has not been followed and if, at all an interference is made, the same has to be done only on the technical ground.

7. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties are in agreement that the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 is not sustainable due to non following of the procedure laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), this Court is not required to answer the other aspect of the matter in the instant case which would be done in an appropriate case, if the occasion arises.

8. In view of above, due to the fact that the cancellation of the Tribe Certificate was done vide impugned order dated 08.03.2019 without granting any opportunity and by a duly constituted committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), the impugned order dated 08.03.2019 is held to be unsustainable in law and accordingly, set aside.

9. As indicated above, the interference is only on the technical ground of non following of procedure laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), and no other opinion is expressed by this Court granting the merits of this dispute.

10. This writ petition accordingly, stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant