The court established that authorities must consider all reports and provide a fair opportunity to parties to present their case in compliance with natural justice principles.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the instant writ appeal against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Single Bench in W.P.(C)

No.9959 of 2025.

3. After perusal of the averments made in paragraphs-3 & 4 of the instant application, we are satisfied that the appe llants were prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the instpapnte al within the statutory period of limitation provided therefor.

Hence, the delay of 30 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

4. In view of the above, I.A. stands disposed of.

W.A. Nos.611 and 1082 of 2025

5. The case has a checkered history. The appellants have approached the Court on multiple occasions flagging one issue or other on the action of the authorities and the writ petitioenrse w disposed of by passing directions upon the authorioti easc tt in a particular manner.

6. The issue relates to a genuinity and authentici tyth eo f caste certificates issued in favour of the appellants. There appears to be the divergent report submitted by two independent authorities, which led the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) to issue show-cause notice and directed for independent joint report to be submitted.

7. The appellants raised the grievance that though the independent joint report was sought for, the autho,r ituiepson whom such task was entrusted, shrug their responys ibainlitd entrusted such onerous exercise to the same authority, weh o gav the earlier conflicting reports. The approach was made to this Court and ultimately the direction was passed permitting the appellants to raise such issue before the SLSC, who shall take a conscious decision in this regard. After disposal of the writ petitions in seriatim, ultimately the writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.4774 of 2025 was filed by appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath challenging the action of the authority in not petirnmgi t the said appellant to raise all such issues, whichd wisapso sed of on 7th March, 2025 directing the authorities to issue a show-cause notice afresh and permitting him to file a reply within a et im frame and thereafter the SLSC was directed to dispose of the proceedings after observing the principles of natural justice.

Since the time for filing reply was stipulated in the said ro rde dated 7th March, 2025, it appears that the SLSC took up the matter on 12th March, 2025, i.e., within five days from the date of the said order and passed the final order without notichiantg t hte appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath was permitted to file a reply within four weeks from the date. The said order datethd 12 March, 2025 was further assailed by the appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Debnath and his sister-Nilima Kumari Debnath in another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9959 of 2025 and the same was disposed of by quashing and setting aside the said oarndde r directing the SLSC to take a decision in compliance to the direction passed by this Court otnh M7arch, 2025. The said order is also assailed in the aforementioned appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that thet Cour has not taken into consideration the pivotal issue thea tr etphort submitted by the third independent authority is replica hoef t earlier one as those independent authorities have not taken an independent exercise, but entrusted the said task on thee sam authorities, whose reports were found contradictory.

9. Since the order datedth 7March, 2025 takes care of all the issues and permitted the appellant-Subhransu Sekhar Deob nath t take such plea before the SLSC, it was an ardent duty of the SLSC to take a decision thereupon. Once the Court directed the authority to take an independent decision, it is not etxepde tchat the said authority would proceed with the close mind , sbhuatll pass the order after recording the proper reasons. Since the order

dated 12th March, 2025 was passed unnoticing the order datht ed 7

March, 2025, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmityt hine order challenged in the writ appeal wh