Allowed

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Oct 2015WPS/373/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his request for caste verification due to jurisdictional grounds. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the local officer to forward the request to the appropriate committee for verification of social status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondent No.3 directed to forward request to Respondent No.2 for verification of social status.

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 373 of 2010

¶5

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko S/o Chhattar Singh Marko, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Badekilepal, Block Bastanar, Distt.-Bastar (CG).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

¶9

High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Director, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, State Of Chhattisgarh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Premises, Raipur (CG).

¶10

Deputy Director High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh, Regional Unit (Kshetriya Ekai) Jagdalpur, Distt.-Bastar (CG)

¶11

Sub Divisional Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG).

¶12

Secretary, Family Welfare & Health Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG).

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	Shri Vaibhav A Gowardhan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

01/10/2015

¶18

The Petitioner seeks to impugn order (Annexure P/1) whereby the Respondent

¶19

No.3 has refused to conduct inquiry in respect of social status of the Petitioner on the ground that Petitioner was originally the resident of Madhya Pradesh and which now is beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.3 so far as the verification of the caste of the Petitioner is concerned.

¶20

¶21

The State in its reply in para-7 has categorically stated that in the event if the Respondent No.2 and 3 are directed for verification of the social status of the Petitioner, the same would be honoured by them.

¶22

In the light of above submission made by the State counsel in its reply in para-7, impugned order (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the Respondent No.3 is directed to forward the request of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 for verification of

¶23

social status of the Petitioner.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to

¶25

costs.

¶26

Sd/(P.Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶27

inder

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Bahadur Singh Marko v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

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

K.k.chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Jageshwar Ram Vs Bhuvan Lal and Ors.

Amit Bose Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kanhaiyalal Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Tikam Chand Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vijendra Kuamr Dewangan Vs State of C.G. and Ors.