The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ODISHA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 (An appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948.) ****** Ashok Chandra Dora, S/o. Late Ganeswar Dora, At- Jamamunda, P.O- Deulagudi, P.S.- Tusra, District- Bolangir. -versus- … Appellant 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Secretary, Department of ST and SC Development, At- Lok Sabha Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, District- Khordha, 2. The Collector, Bolangir, At/P.O/District- Bolangir, 3. Tusura, District- Bolangir, 4. Tuladhar Deulgudi, P.S,- Tusura, District-Bolangir. Sri Netrananda Bhoi, S/o. Late At- Madhupur,P.O- The Tahasildar, Tusra, At/P.O- Bhoi, Advocate for the parties : For the Appellant : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate … Respondents For Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel (For Respondent Nos.1 and 2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Decision
Heard and disposed of on :: 30.06.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench :- 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. The Appellant, in this Intra-Court Appeal, seeks to challenge W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 1 of 8 the order dated 1st December, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed in W.P.(C) No.15 of 2008, wherein, the learned Single Judge held that the question involved in the writ petition has become academic as the term of Chairman of Panchayat Samiti was over by the time the writ petition was taken up for final disposal. However, it was clarified in the impugned order that the question involved in the writ petition, if raised in future shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. The facts in nutshell relevant for proper adjudication of the appeal are that the Appellant contested the election for Chairman of Panchayat Samiti as a Scheduled Tribe candidate on the basis of Caste Certificate dated 31st May, 1988 (Annexure-2) granted by Tahasildar, Tusura describing him of ‘Kondadora’ tribe. On an application filed by Sri Netrananda Bhoi- Respondent No.4 challenging the Caste Certificate under Annexure-2, Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002 was initiated on the file of the Tahasildar, Tusura. Ultimately, the said Caste Certificate granted in favour of the Appellant was cancelled vide the order dated 22nd December, 2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the Tahasildar, Tusura, when the Appellant was continuing as the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti. The Tahasildar, Tusura in the said order held that the Appellant is ‘Telenga’ by caste. While adjudicating Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002, Tahasildar, Tusura relied upon the letter No.35/1/72- RU (SCT.V) dated 2nd May, 1975 (inadvertently stated April, 1975) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and held that the forefathers of the Appellant had migrated from Telengana to Odisha and thus he cannot be granted the Caste Certificate belonging to Scheduled Tribe in the State of Odisha. While cancelling the Caste Certificate, the Tahasildar, Tusura also took into consideration the W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 following materials:- “On perusal of oral evidence adduced by the O.P, documents as relied by the Advocate of the O.P., the following points are noticed. i. The O.P. in his cross examination has admitted that their fore- father are migrated. ii. The advocate for the O.P. in his written memo of arguments vide page No.2, Pragraph 2nd has submitted that their fore-father had migrated from Telengana to Odisha and because of their migration they were called as “Telenga” instead of "Kanda Dora". iii. Perusal of certified copy of judgment passed in Title Suit No.125/73 and in Title Suit No.62/93, Munsit Bargarh as relied by the O.P. it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs are migrated from Telengana and originally they belong to Telengana. iv. Local enquiry report of the Revenue Supervisor, clearly discloses that the fore-fathers O.P. migrated from locality of Telgu area. That a part the villagers of Jamunda state that the fore- fathers of the O.P. are migrated from Telgu speaking area.” The Appellant assailed the order under Annexure-5 before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15 of 2008. 4. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Record of Rights (Annexure-19 to I.A. No. 1795 of 2025) issued in the year 1936 in favour of the grandfather of the Appellant shows that they were residents of Odisha prior to 1936. She further submits that Tahasildar, Tusura had not also taken into consideration, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 (for brevity ‘the Presidential Order’) and the letter/Circular dated 22nd March, 1977 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Annexure-21 to I.A. No. 1795 of 2025). The said circular/letter clearly states as under:- “2. As required under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President has, with respect to every State and Union Territory and where it is State after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State, issued orders notifying various Castes and Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 3 of 8 or Union Territory from time to time. The inter-state area restrictions have been deliberately imposed so that the people belonging to the specific community residing in a specific area, which has been assessed to qualify for the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, only benefit from the facilities provided for them. Since the people belonging to the same caste but living in different State/Union Territories may not necessarily suffer from the same disabilities, it is possible that two persons belonging to the same caste but residing in different States /U.Ts may not both be treated to belong to Scheduled Caste/Tribe or vice-versa. Thus, the residence of a particular person in a particular locality assumes a special significance. This residence has not to be understood in the literal or ordinary sense of the word. On the other hand, it connotes the permanent residence of a person on the date of the notification of the Presidential Order scheduling his caste/tribe in relation to that locality. Thus, a person who is temporarily away from his permanent place of abode at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order applicable in his case, say, for example, to earn a living or seek education, etc., can also be regarded as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be, if his caste/tribe has been specified in that Order in relation to his State/UT. But he cannot be treated as such in relation to the place of his temporary residence notwithstanding the fact that the name of his caste/tribe has been scheduled in respect of that area in any Presidential Order. 3. It is to ensure the veracity of this permanent residence of a person and that of the caste/tribe to which he claims to belong that the Government of India has made a special provision in the proforma prescribed for the issue of such certificate. In order that the certificates are issued to the deserving persons it is necessary that proper verification based primarily on revenue records and if need be, through reliable enquiries, is made before such certificates are issued. As it is only the Revenue Authorities who, besides having access to relevant revenue records are in a position to make reliable enquiries, Government of India insists upon the production of certificates from such authorities only. In order to be competent to issue such certificates, therefore, the authority mentioned in the Government of India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms) letter No. 13/2/74-Est (SCT), dated the 5th August, 1975, (copy enclosed) should be the one concerned with the locality in which the person applying for the certificate and his place of permanent abode at the time of the notification of the relevant Presidential Order. Thus, the Revenue Authority of one District would not be competent to issue such a certificate in respect of persons belonging to another district. Nor can such an authority of one State/UT issue such certificates in respect of persons whose place of permanent residence at the time of the notification of a particular Presidential Order, has been in a different State/Union W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 4 of 8 Territory. In the case of persons born after the date of notification of the relevant Presidential Order, the place of residence for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes status, is the place of permanent abode of their parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under which they claim to belong to such a Caste/Tribe.” (emphasis supplied) 5. She also relied upon the order dated 21st September, 2002 vide Annexure-7 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Settlement Revision Case No. 297 of 2002 filed by the father of the Appellant, which was also placed before the Tahasildar, Tusura during adjudication of Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002. The said Revision was filed by the father of the Appellant under Section 15(b) of Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 with a prayer to change the caste from ‘Telenga’ to ‘Kondadora’ in the Record of Right. Entertaining the Revision and relying upon the finding in the judgment passed by learned Munsif, Bargarh in Title Suit No.125 of 1973, the Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Odisha, Bhubaneswar directed to change the caste of the father of the Appellant from ‘Telenga’ to ‘Kondadora’ in the Record of Right. It is also submitted that the said order of the Commissioner was never challenged and has attained finality. These materials though recorded, but were not discussed by the Tahasildar, Tusura while adjudicating the Revenue Misc. Case No.310 of 2002. 6. She submits that had learned Single Judge taken into consideration the consequence of the order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002 along with the materials on record, as stated above, the order would have been different. Hence, she prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to remit W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 the matter to the Tahasildar, Tusura for de novo adjudication of Revenue Misc. Case No.310 of 2002 giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that no finding is recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to merit of the order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002, which was impugned therein. On the other hand, holding that the writ petition became academic, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the question involved therein if raised in future, will be decided in accordance with law. Thus, the Appellant had a scope to avail the remedy in accordance with law. He submits that the notification under Annexure-21 was not placed before the Tahasildar, Tusura for his consideration. Hence, the contention to the effect that the said notification was not taken into consideration is not sustainable. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 8. Taking note of submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the Circular/Letter dated 22nd March, 1977 (Annexure-21 to I.A. No.1795 of 2025), it is categorically observed that the place of residence of a person born after the date of notification of the Presidential Order, for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes status, is the place of permanent abode of his/her parents at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order under which he/she claims to belong to such a Caste/Tribe. The date of notification of the Presidential Order is 6th September, 1950. Thus, the place of domicile of a person on the date of W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 6 of 8 notification of the Presidential Order carries much significance for grant of caste certificate. In the instant case, Record of Right granted in favour of the grandfather of the Appellant at Annexure-19 clearly shows that the family of the Appellant are residing in Odisha since at least 1936, i.e., prior to coming into force of the Presidential Order, 1950. Further, in Title Suit No.125 of 1973 learned Munsif, Bargarh has declared that the father of the Appellant belongs to ‘Kondadora’ tribe. 9. The Tahasildar, Tusura while adjudicating Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 0f 2002, although took note of the aforesaid materials while recording the case of the Appellant, but failed to discuss the same while recording its finding. Further, learned Single Judge committed an error in recording that the writ petition had become academic, as the term of the office of Chairman, Panchayat Samiti in which the Appellant was continuing, was over inasmuch as the question involved in the writ petition was the validity of the order of Tahasildar, Tusura cancelling the caste certificate of the Appellant in Revenue Misc. Case No.310 of 2002, which has nothing to do with term of the office of the Chairman Panchayat Samiti. As such, learned Single Judge should have decided the writ petition on merit. Thus, both the orders are not sustainable. 10. No purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge to consider the Writ Petition afresh keeping in mind the discussions made above, but in that process, the matter will be further delayed. 11. Keeping in mind that we have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the order of the W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 7 of 8 Tahssildar, Tusura and that the Revenue Misc. Case was initiated in the year 2002, we feel it proper to set aside the order under Annexure-5 as well as the order dated 1st December, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed in W.P.(C) No. 15 of 2008 and remit the matter to Tahasildar, Tusura to adjudicate Revenue Misc. Case No. 310 of 2002 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. Since the Misc. Case is of the year 2002, the Tahasildar, Tusura shall make all endeavors to dispose of the Revenue Misc. Case expeditiously without allowing unnecessary/ long adjournments to any of the parties. 12. The Writ Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Judge (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (Savitri Ratho) puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 09-Jul-2025 17:18:11 W.A. No. 2257 of 2023 Page 8 of 8