Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Gond v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019WRIC/356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court challenged the non-speaking order cancelling a Scheduled Tribe certificate. Finding the committee failed to provide reasons, the writ was allowed, impugned order quashed, and matter remanded for fresh hearing with speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; writ petition allowed; matter remanded to Committee with three-month deadline to pass speaking order.

Rajesh Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 356 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Gond Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 10th October, 2017 passed by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate.

¶6

In brief, facts of the case are that a competent authority issue a caste certificate dated 18th October, 2003 certifying that the petitioner belongs to "Gond" community a tribe enlisted in the schedule notified by the State Government. The District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner belong to "bhadbhujiya" community and that is part of Other Backward Class.

¶7

The only argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the decision of the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is not based on any reasons and as such the same is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order.

¶8

On going through the order dated 10th October, 2017, it is apparent that the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee just by referring a report placed before it held that the petitioner belong to "bhadbhujiya" community. Thus, cancelled the caste certificate issued much back in the year 2003. A copy of the report on which the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee relied upon too is available on record. The report also does not contain reasons sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is "bhadbhujiya" and not a member of scheduled tribe.

¶9

It is well settled that no finding could have been given by a quasi judicial authority without having reasons in support thereof. The finding arrived by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee being not supported by adequate reasons is apparently bad.

¶10

In view of that, the order impugned dated 10th October, 2017 passed by District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is set aside.

¶11

The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Committee concerned for examining the entire issue afresh by considering the material placed before it by the petitioner. The Committee is required to pass a speaking order by supporting its findings with reasons. Necessary order is required to be passed in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.

¶12

Order Date :- 25.3.2019 Bhaskar

¶13

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Rajesh Kumar Gond v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Gond v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangat and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Mall Hotel Limited and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Chetram Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Dinesh Kumar Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Others