Allowed

Ku. Archana Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Oct 2024WPC/2430/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed petitioner's writ petition setting aside the rejection of her caste certificate application. The court directed the SDO to reconsider the case afresh considering this Court's prior decision and relevant Supreme Court guidelines within three months. No cost awarded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.02.2011 set aside; matter remitted to SDO to reconsider petitioner's case for temporary caste certificate within three months.

Ku. Archana Mandal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.1 of 3

¶2

2024:CGHC:39175

¶3

Digitally signed by SAIFAN SAIFAN KHAN Date: KHAN 2024.10.05 15:05:29 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WPC No. 2430 of 2011

¶7

Ku. Archana Mandal, D/o Niranjan Prasad Mandal, aged about 26 years, R/o Railway Quarter No.294/1, Railway Colony Bungalow Yard, SEC Railway, Bilaspur, (CG)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1- State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶11

2- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur (CG)

¶12

3- Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶13

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.02 : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 03. 10.2024

¶14

1. Heard.

¶15

2. This is second round of litigation. In the first round, by order dated 06.10.2010, passed by the respondent No.02, petitioner’s application for grant of permanent caste certificate was rejected on the ground that she has failed to establish that her ancestors were living in the State of Chhattisgarh prior to 1950, which was quashed by order of this Court dated 11.11.2010, passed in WPC-6464-2010 (Archana Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) . This Court while passing said

¶16

Page No.2 of 3

¶17

order dated 11.11.2010 directed the SDO (R) [i.e. respondent No.02] to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision of this Court passed in WPS-3338-2007 [Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh and others] , decided on 19.08.2010. Thereafter, again for the second time, by impugned order dated 28.02.2011, the respondent No.02 has rejected petitioner’s application on the same finding that the petitioner is unable to prove the fact that her ancestors were residing in the State of Chhattisgarh prior to 06.09.1950. However, while passing order dated 28.02.2011, the respondent No.02 has not considered the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra). Aggrieved at which, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶18

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while passing impugned order dated 28.02.2011, the respondent No.02 has failed to comply the direction of this Court passed in the first round of litigation, dated 11.11.2010, and arbitrarily rejected petitioner’s application for grant of caste certificate and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶19

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶20

5. True it is that the SDO (R) [i.e. respondent No.02] while considering petitioner’s application for grant of temporary caste certificate for the second time, by order dated 28.02.2011 though rejected her application but has also not considered the decision of this Court rendered in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra), which was directed

¶21

Page No.3 of 3

¶22

to be considered in the first round of litigation vide order dated 11.11.2010 and, therefore, the impugned order 28.02.2011 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter is again remitted before the respondent No.02 [i.e. SDO (R)] for considering petitioner’s case for grant of temporary caste certificate afresh in light of the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and also in light of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost.

¶24

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶25

s@if

Ku. Archana Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Archana Mandal v. State of Chhattisgarh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meena Rajwade Vs Smt. Gangotri Rajwade

Shobha Ram Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhabilal Onti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Khunuram Dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Kamal Kishor Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sudhanshu Pandey Vs General Manager personal Food Corporation Of India