The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Tiburam Tangulu ....... Petitioner -Versus- The State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. D. Tripathy, Advocate For Opp. Parties (Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3) : Mr. T.K. Biswal, A.G.A. ---------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment: 25.04.2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. This Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda in R.M.C. Case No.184 of 2017, vide which it was ordered to recall all the Caste Certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner and cancell the same. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief background fact, which led to filing of this Writ petition is that, the Petitioner is the son of Ghasiram Tangulu of village-Badapada. Ghasiram is the son of late Hari Tangulu. Hari and Ghasiram belong to Kotia Community, which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe Community. Hari and Ghasiram were not possessing any landed property of their own. They were residing in the Jungle land belonging to the State Government. Hence, the State Government issued Patta in favour of the Petitioner to reside over the Jungle land. In the year 2009, the Petitioner applied for Caste Certificate. The Thasildar, Chitrakonda issued a Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner on 13.03.2009 vide Caste Certificate Case No.486/2009. In the year 2014, the Petitioner became a candidate in the Gram Panchayat Election. At that time, he obtained a Computerized Caste Certificate as a S.T. Person. However, when the matter stood thus, on 16.01.2017 the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda initiated R.M.C Case No.184/2017 against him for cancellation of his Caste Certificate on the basis of allegation made by one Rajesh Chandran that the Petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Category. Pursuant to such allegation made, the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda, vide order dated 16.01.2017 directed the Revenue Supervisor for investigation. The Revenue Supervisor submitted his report on 13.01.2017. Thereafter, on the very next day i.e. on 17.01.2017, the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda cancelled the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, vide order dated W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 2 of 10 17.01.2017 and submitted a Compliance Report to the Additional District Magistrate, Malkangiri, vide letter dated 02.02.2017, 3. It is further case of the Petitioner that in the said proceeding i.e. R.M.C No.184 of 2017, he was neither impleaded as a party nor any notice was issued to him by the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda giving him opportunity to have his say while initiating the said proceeding and passing the impugned order. Hence, such an order is illegal, arbitrary and misconceived. It is further case of the Petitioner that in the said report of the Revenue Inspector, the R.O.R. of one Ghasi Tangulu, S/o. Daitary Tangulu were verified and their Castes were recorded as S.C. in the respective R.O.Rs. By verifying such R.O.Rs., the Opp. Party No.2 erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner does not belong to S.T. Community. The Opposite Party No.2 and the Revenue Inspector committed serious error while appreciating the aforesaid R.O.Rs. recorded in the name of Ghasi Tangulu, S/o. Daitari Tangulu. The said Ghasi Tangulu is not the father of the present Petitioner. The father of the present Petitioner is Ghasiram Tangulu, who is the son of Hari Tangulu and he does not possess any landed property in the village-Badapada. Therefore, the finding of the Opp. Party No.2, vide the impugned W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 3 of 10 order is illegal, baseless and liable to be set aside, being violative of principles of natural justice. 4. It is further case of the Petitioner that he had no knowledge about such a proceeding initiated against him and passing of such an order, which is impugned to this Writ petition. The Petitioner came to know about the said order on 18.03.2019 when some rival villagers disclosed about the said order in the village meeting. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for a certified copy of the impugned order from the Office of Opp. Party No.2 on the very next day i.e. on 19.03.2019. After obtaining the certified copy, he approached this Court and hence, there is a delay in approaching this Court. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2017, as at Annexure-6 series, passed by the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda (Opposite Party No.2) in R.M.C No.184 of 2017. 5. In response to the said allegations made in the Writ Petition, the State-Opposite Parties have filed a Counter Affidavit to justify the said action of the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Tahasildar, Chitrakonda. However, in paragraph No.4 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been admitted that the Petitioner was not made a party in R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017 to defend his case. W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 4 of 10 6.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterating the facts detailed in the Writ petition so also drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in para-4 of the Counter Affidavit submitted that the State-Opposite Parties have admitted that since the Petitioner was not a party to R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017, he was not noticed in the said case to have his say. Mr. Tripathy, relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2022 (II) ILR-Cut-87 (Namita Sagaria Vs. State of Odisha & others), submitted that since there is a gross violation of provisions of law and principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 passed in R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017, as at Annexure-6 series, deserves to be set aside. 7. In response to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T.K. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties, reiterating the stand taken in the common Counter filed by State-Opposite Parties, submitted that because of the reasons detailed in the Counter, the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda was justified to pass the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 and submitted the compliance report to the Additional District Magistrate, Malkangiri, vide communicated dated 02.02.2017 as the complaint was made by one P.Rajesh Chandran of village-Balimela before the Sub- W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 5 of 10 Collector, Malkangiri, who wrote to the Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 31.12.2016, asking him to submit a report in the said regard. Because of the said Report dated 02.02.2017, the impugned order deserves no interference, even though the Petitioner was not noticed by the Authority concerned. 8. In view of such submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce below paragraph No.7 of the judgment in Namita Sagaria (supra):- to that prior 7. Now the question arises whether such cancellation under Annexure-2 can be sustained legally. No documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 & 3 to communicating show cancellation order under Annexure-2, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing or was given any show cause by the appropriate authority, which has been authorized to issue such cancellation order. In this context, let us refer to the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of “the Act” which are quoted hereunder: “6. (1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committees for verification of Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under sub-section (1) of section 4 specifying the functions and the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committees. the said notification in the (2) The appointing authority of Government, Central Government, Local Authority, public sector undertakings, W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 6 of 10 educational Co-operative institutions, Societies or any other Government aided institutions may make application, in such in such manner as maybe form and prescribed, the Scrutiny Committee to concerned for the verification of the Caste Certificate, if any doubt arises about the genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by any person to get any benefit on the basis of such Certificate: Provided that the Scrutiny Committee shall also have the power to verify suo-motu the genuineness of a Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority: Provided further that the person whose Caste Certificate has been subjected to verification shall not be debarred to avail the benefit nor shall discontinue to avail the is benefit until cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. the Caste Certificate (3) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate as may be prescribed. or after before the 7.(1)Where, commencement of this Act, it comes to notice that a person not belonging to any of the reserved category has obtained a false Caste Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belong to such reserved category, the Scrutiny Committee may, suo-motu or otherwise, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such Certificate and if it is of the opinion obtained that fraudulently, it shall, by an order, cancel the Certificate was W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 7 of 10 and confiscate the Certificate by following such procedure as maybe prescribed after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard and communicate the same to the the concerned authority, if any. concerned person and (2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any authority or court except the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.” A perusal of section 6 of the ‘Act’ makes it clear that only Scrutiny Committee constituted under ‘the Act’ has been empowered to verify the genuineness of the caste certificate. For such purpose as provided under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of ‘the Act’ when it comes to notice that a person, who does not belong to any of the reserved category has obtained a false Caste Certificate, then the Scrutiny Committee can suo-motu or otherwise call for the records and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard can cancel or confiscate the certificate and communicate the person concerned and the concerned authority, if any. In this case, there is nothing to show that prior issuance of cancellation communication under Annexure-2, the above noted provisions of law have been followed. Thus there has been a gross violation of the provisions of law and principles of nature justice as contained therein. Even if the above noted provisions were not there, then also the Caste Certificate under Annexure-1 could not have been cancelled at least without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same to to W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 8 of 10 visits certainly cancellation without issuing a show cause containing the details of allegations made against her as the such petitioner with civil and evil consequences. In any case, the above noted provisions of law have been clearly violated in the present case inasmuch as the cancellation order has not been passed by the Scrutiny Committee as the said committee is only authorized to verify the genuineness of such certificate and issue cancellation order. Thus the impugned communication under Annexure-2 has been issued without jurisdiction as after coming into force of ‘the Act’, Tahasildar, Tentulikhunti (opposite party No.3) has no jurisdiction to cancel a Caste Certificate. Thus, there has been a total non- application of mind by the opposite party No.3 while communicating the cancellation of Annexure- 1 under Annexure2. In such background, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the communication under Annexure-2 since it is a product of arbitrary impugned exercise of power. Accordingly, the communication is hereby quashed. (Emphasis supplied) 9. As there is an admission in para-4 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties that the Petitioner was not a party to R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017, and he was never noticed to defend his case and no liberty was given to the Petitioner before cancellation order was passed vide order dated 17.01.2017 so also the views taken by the coordinate Bench in Namita Sagaria (supra), this Court is of the view that, the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 passed in R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017, as at Annexure-6 series, is liable to be set aside. W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 9 of 10 Accordingly, the said order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Chitrakonda is hereby set aside. 10. The Tahasildar, Chitrakonda (Opposite Party No.2), may proceed further in R.M.C Case No.184 of 2017 in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 11.
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. ….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th April, 2024/Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 30-Apr-2024 10:59:06 W.P.(C) No.6765 of 2019 Page 10 of 10