The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8962 of 2013 Dhiren Biswal …. Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-cum- Revenue Divisional Commissioner, North Division, Sambalpur and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 19.11.2024 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter 3. alia challenging the final order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 16.03.2012 in Fake Certificate Case No.171/11 (BLG) under Annexure-4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was adopted by one Krushna @ Basudev // 2 // Chandra Biswal vide deed of adoption executed on 31.03.1985 under Annexure-2. Basing on such deed of adoption and the fact that the adoptive father belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, he was issued with a caste certificate by describing him having belong to Schedule Caste vide certificate issued under Annexure- 1 in Revenue Misc. Case No.2151 of 1996. 4.1. It is contended that when petitioner was continuing with the benefit basing on the certificate issued under Annexure-1, he received a notice from O.P. No.1 vide letter No.VI.E.III.F-10/11 203/SSD dated 11.03.2011. Vide the said letter, petitioner was asked to file a show-cause as to why the caste certificate obtained by him under Annexure-1 will not be cancelled. 4.2. It is contended that since petitioner without any fault of his own and basing on the deed of adoption available under Annexure-2, was issued with the certificate under Annexure-1, the said certificate cannot be held to have been issued by committing fraud of any nature by the petitioner. 4.3. It is contended that even though petitioner appeared before the O.P. No.1 and participated in the proceeding, but without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the petitioner in his show-cause, caste Page 2 of 6 // 3 // certificate issued in his favour under Annexure-1 has been cancelled with other direction vide the impugned order dated 16.03.2012 under Annexure-4. 4.4. It is contended that since petitioner was duly issued with the caste certificate under Annexure-1, State Level Scrutiny Committee is not competent to take up the issue and it is only the issuing authority or the appellate authority who has got power to cancel the certificate. It is accordingly contended that the final order passed by O.P. No.1 on 16.03.2012 under Annexure-4 is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dayaram Vrs. Sudhir Batham and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-22 of the decision in the case of Dayaram has held as follows:- “22. Therefore, we are of the view, that Directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. By issuing such directions, this Court was not taking over the functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till the legislature chose to make an appropriate law.” 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by O.P. No.1. It is contended that basing on the deed of Page 3 of 6 // 4 // adoption, petitioner though was issued with the caste certificate under Annexure-1 but subsequently when it came to the knowledge of the authority that petitioner does not belong to Schedule Caste community and the certificate has been issued wrongly in his favour, petitioner was issued with a notice basing on the Enquiry Report submitted by the competent authority vide letter dated 11.03.2011. 5.1. It is contended that on his appearance petitioner admitted his fault by filing a show-cause that such a certificate has been issued basing on the adoption deed available under Annexure-2. It is contended that once petitioner admits his fault by filing a show-cause on his appearance pursuant to the notice issued on 11.03.2011, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order basing on such admission of the petitioner. 5.2. It is also contended that deed of adoption basing on which Annexure-1 certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner is not a registered deed of adoption nor petitioner has been declared as the son of the adoptive father by any competent Court of law. 5.3. It is contended that since the adoption deed is an unregistered one and no decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner declaring him to be adopted Page 4 of 6 // 5 // son, no illegality or irregularity can also be found with the impugned order. It is also contended that once petitioner participated in the proceeding on being noticed without raising any objection with regard to the authority of SLSC after becoming unsuccessful, he cannot raise that point before this Court that SLSC is not competent to take up the issue. 5.4. It is also contended that in the meantime for supersession of the Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980, a new rule has been notified vide notification dated 06.01.2024 i.e. Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regularization of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Rules, 2023. The detailed procedure has been prescribed under Rule-7 of the aforesaid rules to deal with similar issue. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Dayaram as cited (supra) while is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 16.03.2012 so passed in Fake Certificate Case No.171/11(BLG) under Annexure-4, quash the same accordingly. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.1 to proceed with the matter in terms of the provisions contained Page 5 of 6 // 6 // under Rule-7 of the 2023 Rules. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order before O.P. No.1 on 13.12.2024 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Dec-2024 11:28:27 Page 6 of 6