Disposed

Ziauddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Backward Classes Welfare Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024WRIC/460/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of the petitioner's OBC 'Kalal' caste certificate by District Level, Divisional Appellate Forum and State Level Committees. Petitioner relied on a Vigilance Cell report favouring him and on Kumari Madhuri Patil. Counsel for respondent No.10 sought time; court listed the matter as fresh next week and stayed the impugned orders till then.

What did the court decide?

Stay of operation of the three impugned caste certificate cancellation orders till next date of listing; case listed as fresh.

Ziauddin Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 460 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ziauddin Ahmad

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Backward Classes Welfare Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Chauhan,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

The urgency in the matter as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an election petition has been filed by the respondent No.10 contending that the caste certificate of the petitioner is fake on the basis of which he contested the election for the post of Gram Pradhan and now, the election petition is fixed today and in case the orders impugned are not stayed, consequently the said ground of cancellation of caste certificate would itself be a ground on which the election petition is liable to be allowed even though the petitioner has a prima facie case for stay of the orders impugned by which the caste certificate has been cancelled.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 9 as well as Shri Nirankar Singh, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.10, which is taken on record.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 05/06.01.2024 passed by the State Level Caste Certification Verification Committee i.e. respondent No.2, the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the Divisional Appellate Forum for Caste Certificate Verification Committee i.e. respondent No.6 as well as the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the District Level Caste Verification Committee i.e. the respondent No.3, copies of which are annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively.

¶9

Vide order dated 21.07.2022, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner indicating him as an OBC "Kalal" has been cancelled. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 17.09.2022 and the revision filed against the appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 05/06.01.2024.

¶10

The sheet anchor of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the Vigilance Cell as constituted by the State Government, a copy of which is annexure 26 to the petition, dated 27.09.2023 has specifically indicated that the petitioner by birth is a Kalal (OBC).

¶11

Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others 1994 (6) SCC 241 , more particularly, paragraph 13(7) of the said judgment to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedure for issue of a social status certificate and has further indicated that a certificate could be examined by the Vigilance Cell constituted in each Directorate and in case the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action is required to be taken.

¶12

Placing strong reliance on the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention is that once the Vigilance Cell has submitted its report whereby the petitioner has been found to be belonging by birth to the caste of Kalal i.e. an OBC, there was no occasion for either of the authorities to have cancelled the caste certificate or for the appellate or revisional authority to have rejected the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner and hence, the petition.

¶13

Responding to that Shri Nirankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10 prays for some time to study the matter.

¶14

As such, on the request of Shri Nirankar Singh, list this case in the next week as fresh.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, operation of the orders impugned dated 21.07.2022, 17.09.2022 and 05/06.01.2024, copies of which are annexure 3, 2 & 1 to the petition respectively, shall remain stayed.

¶16

Whenever the case is listed, the name of Shri Nirankar Singh be indicated from the side of respondent.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 S. Shivhare

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ziauddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Backward Classes Welfare Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziauddin Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Backward Classes Welfare Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akil Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Islam Vs Additional Deputy Collector Unnao Tehsil Unnao and 3 Others

Rahul Jessel Mittra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

Smt. Shakrun and 4 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Shrawasti and 3 Others

M/S Prashant Builders through its Authorized Representative Sonu Kumar vs Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited Thru. Director