Remanded

Chandrabhan Motghare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jun 2025WPC/119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for a permanent caste certificate after rejection based on missing pre-1950 revenue documents. The Single Judge held the authority erred in applying Rule 20 of the Rules, 2013 without granting due hearing and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.09.2019 set aside and matter remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide afresh after affording opportunity of hearing.

Chandrabhan Motghare Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI

¶3

2025:CGHC:24633

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 119 of 2020

¶7

Chandrabhan Motghare S/o Bajirao Motghare Aged About 67 Years Caste - Mahar, Resident Of Q.No. 3B, Street No. 08, Sector - 9, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Tahsildar Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Smt. Deepa Ramteke, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

16/06/2025

¶16

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶17

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents.

¶18

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue Caste Certificate to the Petitioner.

¶19

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus to provide a Permanent Caste Certificate of Schedule Caste to the petitioner on prescribed period granted under C.G. Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011.

¶20

¶21

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste particularly, caste Mahar. An application was moved for issuance of the social status certificate before the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Durg on 26.05.2018. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.09.2019 only on the ground that no revenue documents prior to the year 1950 have been placed. She would further argue that the petitioner has brought this petition against the transaction description (Annexure P/1), the action of the respondent competent authority that the petitioner has demanded unnecessary documents for issuing a permanent social status certificate and the respondent competent authority rejected the application. She would also argue that according to clause 2(k) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules, 2013’) ‘Presidential Notification’ means order issued by the President under Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. She would contend that the caste of the petitioner is notified in the Presidential Notification. She would further contend that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh as his parents were residing within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh prior to year 1980.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner could not produce the revenue documents relating to the

¶24

¶25

year 1950 or earlier period and therefore, the Prescribed Authority declined to issue the social status certificate in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶27

Chapter IV of the Rules, 2013 deals with Inquiry, Cancellation and Forfeiture of Certificates. Rule 20 of the Rules, 2013 prescribes the vigilance service empowered to conduct an enquiry with regard to the social status of a person. In the absence of material documents, the report of the vigilance cell would be conclusive.

¶28

Taking into consideration the provisions of the Rules, 2013, particularly, Rule 20, in the opinion of this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) committed the error of law. Consequently, the transaction description (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P/2) are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Durg to consider and decide the matter of the petitioner for grant of the social status certificate strictly in accordance with the Rules, 2013 after affording the due opportunity of hearing.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at motion stage.

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

vatti

Chandrabhan Motghare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Motghare 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Vinita Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.bai And Ors. Vs Ratan Singh And Ors.

Sheela Mishra Vs Shankar Banerjee

Nagar Nigam Samast Karmachari Sangh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Urmila Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uma Kurre Vs Collector