Rambabu Dhangar vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 17th July, 2025 made by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appears on his behalf and submits, procedure provided by judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 was not followed in issuing impugned rejection order.
2. The writ petition was moved before us on 22nd August 2025. Reproduced below is paragraph 3 from order made that day. "3. Allegation has been made of no inquiry conducted, nor petitioner given opportunity of hearing. Dr. Tiwari, to obtain instructions for demonstrating the allegations to be untrue, failing which interference is likely. Short affidavit be filed on adjourned dated, upon advanced copy served. " Pursuant to above order, State filed counter and today Mr. Pandey files rejoinder thereto.
3. On query Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appearing for State draws attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 in the counter. The paragraphs are reproduced below. "5. That, the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee convened its meeting to examine the claim of the petitioner on 24.12.2024, 30.12.2024 & 26.05.2025. The petitioner was also called and remained present in the aforesaid meetings. The deponent is brining on record certificate showing the presence of all the members of the committee in the meetings as 2 Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit. WRIC No. 27462 of 2025
6. That, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. In fact, the District Social Welfare Officer, District-Mathura, vide notice dated 23.12.2024, 28.12.2024 & 19.05.2025, called the petitioner to appear before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and to submit his claim alongwith other relevant documents. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, true copies of the notices dated
23.12.2024; 28.12.2024 & 19.05.2025 are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE Nos.C.A.-2, 3 & 4 to this Counter Affidavit."
4. We looked in the rejoinder to find, inter alia, paragraphs 5 and 6 in the counter stand dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5. Said paragraphs from the rejoinder are reproduced below. "4. That, the contents of Paragraph no. 5 of the Counter Affidavit are misconceived, hence not admitted. It is further submitted that, the respondent no. 2 has proceeded on the matter of the petitioner illegally without adopting prescribed procedure for the same.
5. That, the contents of Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the Counter Affidavit are incorrect, hence not admitted. It is further submitted that the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded on the claim of the petitioner, illegally and arbitrarily. The petitioner was not provided the copy of alleged inquiry report submitted by Revenue Authorities, for filing objection against that. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the petitioner was granted proper opportunity of hearing before passing the Impugned order. Moreover, in entire proceeding no vigilance inquiry was conducted as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, before rejecting the claim of the petitioner."
5. It is clear from last preceding paragraphs, there is no denial by petitioner of both, being present before the scrutiny committee as well as regarding issuance of notices to him, to answer and produce documents. In the circumstances, petitioner's challenge to rejection order on violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted.
6. Mr. Pandey relies on two orders made by another Bench of this Court. They are firstly order dated 8th April, 2025 dealing with Writ C no. 10207 of 2025 (Satish Chandra Dhangar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). Paragraphs 3 and 4 from the order are reproduced below. 3 WRIC No. 27462 of 2025 "3. As the procedure provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in 1995 0 AIR(SC) 94 has not been followed in the particular case.
4. In light of the same, the impugned order dated January 16, 2025 is quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law." Secondly, order dated 24th January, 2025 dealing with Writ C no.- 31827 of 2024 (Ram Avtar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). Paragraphs 3 and 4 from the order are reproduced below. "3. As the procedure provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in 1995 0 AIR(SC) 94 has not been followed in the particular case.
4. In light of the same, the impugned order dated June 21, 2024 is quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law."
7. Above two instances of interference in the writ petitions dealt with reveal that both orders were passed in presence of learned advocate for State. It must be accepted that State conceded to those orders made against it. In this case, State has contested by filing counter. There are specific allegations with supporting disclosures to demonstrate, petitioner was both present before the committee as well as notices issued to him, to produce relevant documents in furtherance of his case. As aforesaid, petitioner could not deny the statements in the counter. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) had also said that the High Court is not a Court of appeal in the matter of issuance and cancellation of caste certificates.
8. Mr. Pandey submits further, after the Tehsildar filed report, no opportunity was given to his client to dispute the same. So much so, the report was not served. The Tehsildar cannot be said to be the authority to conduct vigilance inquiry. On query Mr. Pandey refers to Government Order (GO) dated 5th January, 1996 to demonstrate that the vigilance cell is to conduct the vigilance inquiry. We find from material before us, the Tehsildar conducted the inquiry. On top, copy of the report was not furnished to petitioner. There is nothing to show that the Tehsildar is designated also as the vigilance cell. 4 WRIC No. 27462 of 2025
9. In view of aforesaid, impugned rejection order is set aside and quashed. The matter is restored to stage of making inquiry by the vigilance cell. Petitioner is to be given copy of the report and further opportunity of hearing on it. After that has been done, the committee will issue fresh order.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. September 24, 2025 Mohini (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 17th July, 2025 made by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appears on his behalf and submits, procedure provided by judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 was not followed in issuing impugned rejection order.
2. The writ petition was moved before us on 22nd August 2025. Reproduced below is paragraph 3 from order made that day. "3. Allegation has been made of no inquiry conducted, nor petitioner given opportunity of hearing. Dr. Tiwari, to obtain instructions for demonstrating the allegations to be untrue, failing which interference is likely. Short affidavit be filed on adjourned dated, upon advanced copy served. " Pursuant to above order, State filed counter and today Mr. Pandey files rejoinder thereto.
3. On query Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appearing for State draws attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 in the counter. The paragraphs are reproduced below. "5. That, the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee convened its meeting to examine the claim of the petitioner on 24.12.2024, 30.12.2024 & 26.05.2025. The petitioner was also called and remained present in the aforesaid meetings. The deponent is brining on record certificate showing the presence of all the members of the committee in the meetings as 2 Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit. WRIC No. 27462 of 2025
6. That, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. In fact, the District Social Welfare Officer, District-Mathura, vide notice dated 23.12.2024, 28.12.2024 & 19.05.2025, called the petitioner to appear before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and to submit his claim alongwith other relevant documents. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, true copies of the notices dated
23.12.2024; 28.12.2024 & 19.05.2025 are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE Nos.C.A.-2, 3 & 4 to this Counter Affidavit."
4. We looked in the rejoinder to find, inter alia, paragraphs 5 and 6 in the counter stand dealt with in paragraphs 4 and 5. Said paragraphs from the rejoinder are reproduced below. "4. That, the contents of Paragraph no. 5 of the Counter Affidavit are misconceived, hence not admitted. It is further submitted that, the respondent no. 2 has proceeded on the matter of the petitioner illegally without adopting prescribed procedure for the same.
5. That, the contents of Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the Counter Affidavit are incorrect, hence not admitted. It is further submitted that the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded on the claim of the petitioner, illegally and arbitrarily. The petitioner was not provided the copy of alleged inquiry report submitted by Revenue Authorities, for filing objection against that. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the petitioner was granted proper opportunity of hearing before passing the Impugned order. Moreover, in entire proceeding no vigilance inquiry was conducted as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, before rejecting the claim of the petitioner."
5. It is clear from last preceding paragraphs, there is no denial by petitioner of both, being present before the scrutiny committee as well as regarding issuance of notices to him, to answer and produce documents. In the circumstances, petitioner's challenge to rejection order on violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted.
6. Mr. Pandey relies on two orders made by another Bench of this Court. They are firstly order dated 8th April, 2025 dealing with Writ C no. 10207 of 2025 (Satish Chandra Dhangar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). Paragraphs 3 and 4 from the order are reproduced below. 3 WRIC No. 27462 of 2025 "3. As the procedure provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in 1995 0 AIR(SC) 94 has not been followed in the particular case.
4. In light of the same, the impugned order dated January 16, 2025 is quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law." Secondly, order dated 24th January, 2025 dealing with Writ C no.- 31827 of 2024 (Ram Avtar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). Paragraphs 3 and 4 from the order are reproduced below. "3. As the procedure provided for by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in 1995 0 AIR(SC) 94 has not been followed in the particular case.
4. In light of the same, the impugned order dated June 21, 2024 is quashed and set aside with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law."
7. Above two instances of interference in the writ petitions dealt with reveal that both orders were passed in presence of learned advocate for State. It must be accepted that State conceded to those orders made against it. In this case, State has contested by filing counter. There are specific allegations with supporting disclosures to demonstrate, petitioner was both present before the committee as well as notices issued to him, to produce relevant documents in furtherance of his case. As aforesaid, petitioner could not deny the statements in the counter. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) had also said that the High Court is not a Court of appeal in the matter of issuance and cancellation of caste certificates.
8. Mr. Pandey submits further, after the Tehsildar filed report, no opportunity was given to his client to dispute the same. So much so, the report was not served. The Tehsildar cannot be said to be the authority to conduct vigilance inquiry. On query Mr. Pandey refers to Government Order (GO) dated 5th January, 1996 to demonstrate that the vigilance cell is to conduct the vigilance inquiry. We find from material before us, the Tehsildar conducted the inquiry. On top, copy of the report was not furnished to petitioner. There is nothing to show that the Tehsildar is designated also as the vigilance cell. 4 WRIC No. 27462 of 2025
9. In view of aforesaid, impugned rejection order is set aside and quashed. The matter is restored to stage of making inquiry by the vigilance cell. Petitioner is to be given copy of the report and further opportunity of hearing on it. After that has been done, the committee will issue fresh order.
10. The writ petition is disposed of. September 24, 2025 Mohini (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad