Devi Singh Dhangar vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Devi Singh Dhangar vs State of Up and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal on the ground of alternative statutory remedy, coupled with a direction that if the petitioner files an appeal within one month before the Divisional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, it shall be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and in light of the principles laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), within one month from the date of filing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.7.2025 of the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, District Mathura (caste certificate matter) was passed without adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (AIR 1995 SC 94). +1 more

Court's answer

If the petitioner prefers an appeal within one month before the Divisional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, it shall be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), within one month from the date of filing of such appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedy.

Key takeaways

Whether a vigilance enquiry was conducted before the passing of the impugned order by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, District Mathura is a question of fact which can very well be looked into by the Appellate Authority; hence the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J. and Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.), WRIT - C No. 30965 of 2025, decided October 13, 2025 — Devi Singh Dhangar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others. The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.7.2025 of the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, District Mathura (caste certificate scrutiny), alleging that it was passed without adhering to the mandate/procedural safeguards of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94, particularly regarding vigilance enquiry and natural justice. Although a statutory appeal lay before the Additional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee under the relevant Government Order, the petitioner approached the High Court directly. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedy, the Court holding that whether vigilance enquiry preceded the impugned order is a question of fact for the Appellate Authority. If an appeal is preferred within one month before the Divisional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is to be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and in light of Kumari Madhuri Patil, within one month of filing.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 30965 of 2025

Devi Singh Dhangar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Umesh Tripathi .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

Court No. - 40

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the order dated 17.7.2025 passed by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, District Mathura, on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without adhering to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, AIR 1995 SC 94.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law in view of the procedural safeguards laid down in the aforesaid judgment. It is further submitted that although there exists a statutory remedy of appeal before the Additional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee under the relevant Government Order, the petitioner has directly approached this Court because of violation of principles of natural justice..

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel contended that the issue as to whether any inquiry was conducted prior to the issuance or cancellation of the caste certificate is a disputed question of fact, which can appropriately be adjudicated by the appellate authority. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy.

Since the question as to whether vigilance enquiry was conducted before

WRIC No. 30965 of 2025

2

passing the impugned order by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, District Mathura is a question of fact which can very well be looked into by the Appellate Authority, therefore, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. .

It is provided that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of one month from today before Divisional District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the same shall be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, and in light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) within a period of one months from the date of filing of such appeal.

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

October 13, 2025 Gaurav

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad