Dismissed

Raghoba Mahadik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2018WPC/38/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the cancellation of a caste certificate and a show cause notice. It upheld the Committee's factual finding on caste status as non-interferable under Article 226 and quashed the notice against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's burden to prove caste status not discharged; cancellation valid and Notice quashed; Both writ petitions dismissed.

Raghoba Mahadik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 3663 of 2008

¶5

Order Reserved On : 27/08/2018 Order Passed On : 11/12/2018

¶6

Raghoba, son of Shri Raghupat Rao Mahadik, aged about 45 years, resident of Rajim, Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Ministry of Panchayat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur

¶10

The Caste Certificate Scrutiny High Power Committee, through its Secretary, Caste Certificate Scrutiny High Power Committee, Raipur.

¶11

The Collector, Raipur.

¶12

The Tehsildar, Rajim, District Raipur

¶13

---- Respondent WPC No. 38 of 2017

¶14

Raghoba Mahadik S/o Shri Raghupati Rao Mahadik, Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

The Collector, Gariayaband, Office Of The Collector, Gariyaband CG

¶19

The Collector, (Adivasivikas), Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner, (Adivasivikas), Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶21

The Tahsildar, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

¶22

The Chhattisgarh Lokaayog, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband

¶24

¶25

Chhattisgarh

¶26

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶27

---- Respondent

¶28

For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Sharma with Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Shri AS Kachhawaha, Additional AG. For Respondent No.8 in WPC 38/17 : Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate.

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶30

C A V Order

¶31

In WPC No.3663/2008, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (henceforth 'the Committee') on 10.12.2007 holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kunbi, OBC community. In WPC No.38/2017, the petitioner would assail the show cause notice issued to him by the Collector, Gariyaband, as to why appropriate action may not be taken against him under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 for obtaining false caste certificate. The petitioner is presently holding the office of President, Janpad Panchayat Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband.

¶32

The petitioner claims to be a member of Kunbi, OBC community and had obtained a caste status certificate which was cancelled on 19.10.2005. The Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner to file documents in support of his claim that he belongs to Kunbi community. However, the petitioner could not file any document substantiating his claim. On the contrary, investigation report in respect of the petitioner's caste status reveals that Dakhil

¶33

¶34

Kharij Register of Boys Primary School, Rajim where the petitioner got admitted on 1.8.1969 is carrying an entry in respect of the petitioner's caste status showing that he belongs to “ Maratha ” community. Similarly, in Misal Bandobast of 1930-31 of village Kondkera, Rajim, caste status of his ancestor (Kundu, Wd/o Narayan Rao Mahadik) is also mentioned as “ Maratha ”.

¶35

In the absence of any proof submitted by the petitioner showing any authentic document carrying his caste status as Kunbi, OBC, the Committee concluded that the petitioner wrongly and fraudulently obtained caste status certificate of being a member of OBC community.

¶36

In the matter of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and Another { AIR 1995 SC 1506 }, it is held that onus to prove caste status is on the person who claims to be belonging to such caste. The present petitioner failed to discharge that onus by producing cogent, reliable and clinching evidence. Therefore, finding recorded by the Committee being in the nature of finding of fact, which has been arrived at after following principles of natural justice, the same is not interfere-able while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

The show cause notice issued by the Collector, Gariyaband which is under challenge in WPC No.38/2017 is also sans merit for the reason that once caste certificate has been cancelled and the Committee has concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Kunbi, OBC community, necessary legal consequences would follow

¶38

¶39

and the authorities cannot be restrained from proceeding ahead with the matter.

¶40

For the above stated reasons, both the Writ Petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.

¶41

Sd/Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶42

Barve

Raghoba Mahadik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghoba Mahadik v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Syed Zia Jafar Vs Chairman Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin BANKand3O

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhatram Vs Union of India

D.P.Sharaf Vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd.and Ors.

Akshita Tiwari Vs Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya

Siyamber Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh