Allowed¶32

Basudew Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2025WPS/5619/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Writ Petition (S) No. 5619 of 2016; Basudew Chouhan v. State of Chhattisgarh; caste certificate revocation; High Power Cast Scrutiny Committee; Chairman and Vice-Chairman dual capacity impermissible; quashing of caste scrutiny order; show cause notice for dismissal quashed; matter remitted for fresh consideration; Mani Ram Baiga (2024:CGHC:49348) followed; Rajendra Shankar Shukla (2015) 10 SCC 400 referred; Article 226; decided 03.07.2025 by Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated: impugned order dated 27/06/2016 (Annexure P/2) and show cause notice dated 15/09/2016 (Annexure P/1) quashed; matter remitted to the duly constituted Committee for fresh consideration after hearing both parties; no costs. ¶32

Basudew Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27/06/2016 of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee revoking the petitioner's caste certificate — passed when the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development acted in dual capacity as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee — is sustainable, and whether the consequential show cause notice dated 15/09/2016 initiating dismissal proceedings should stand.

¶17

Court's answer

As in Mani Ram Baiga, the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development (Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatt) acted in dual capacity as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, which is impermissible in law; accordingly the impugned order dated 27/06/2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Consequent upon quashing of the Committee's order, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for his termination (Annexure P/1) is also quashed.

¶29

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the duly constituted Committee to consider and pass order afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a serving Zone Commissioner challenging the order dated 27/06/2016 (Annexure P/2) of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee revoking his caste certificate and the consequential show cause notice dated 15/09/2016 (Annexure P/1) initiating dismissal proceedings. Following this Court's earlier decision in Mani Ram Baiga v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024:CGHC:49348), Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. held that, as in that case, the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development (Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatt) had acted in dual capacity as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, which is impermissible in law. The impugned order and the show cause notice were quashed and the matter remitted to the duly constituted Committee to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing both parties. Petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:30358

¶3

Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEET KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.07.05 17:03:24 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Writ Petition (S) No. 5619 of 2016

¶7

Basudew Chouhan S/o Shri Suglu Ram Chouhan, Aged About 51 Years Wrongly Shown In The Impugned Order As Vasudev, Presently Working As Zone Commissioner, Urban Administration And Development Department At Ambikapur, Post Thana Tah Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

High Power Cast Scrutiny Committee, In The Matter Of Scrutiny Of SC/ST Caste Certificate Scheduled Caste In Research And Training Institute Through Its Secretary Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer

¶15

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶16

03.07.2025

¶17

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the impugned order dated 27/06/2016 (Annexure P/2) by which his caste certificate has been revoked by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and consequently, show cause notice dated 15/09/2016 (Annexure P/1) has been issued against him initiating the proceeding of his dismissal from service.

¶18

Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra and it has already been decided by this Court in the matter of Mani Ram Baiga v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 wherein the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in similar facts and circumstances, has been quashed. In that view of the matter, this writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.

¶19

1 2024:CGHC:49348

¶20

¶21

Per contra, Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶23

This Court, in the matter of Mani Ram Baiga (supra), has held as under :-

¶24

“17. A careful perusal of the constitution of the Committee would show that the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatt has acted in dual capacity as Chairman & Vice-Chairman, both, of the Committee, which is impermissible in law, as one person cannot be allowed to work in dual capacity, however, other members appear to have been constituted and acted in accordance with law. In the matter of Rajendra Shankar Shukla and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2, in identical situation where one officer of the State acted in different capacities in relation to the same transaction, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that each authority was expected to apply its mind independently of each other and it has also been held by their Lordships that the bare minimum requirement of trust and fairness by the State that should ensure its people in running of the Government.

¶25

As such, it is quite vivid that though by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2013, notification dated 22-8-2013 has been issued clearly stating that Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee have to be two different persons one is Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of

¶26

2 (2015) 10 SCC 400

¶27

¶28

Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development and another is Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, but they both cannot be one and same, as wide power has been conferred to the Committee to consider and verify the caste status of a person of whom the caste certificate has been declared invalid and which has serious and drastic civil consequences of that person. Therefore, one person cannot be allowed to act in dual capacity, one as Chairman and another as Vice-Chairman which runs contrary to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Gupta’s case (supra) and S.S. Dhanoa (supra), as the Committee is deprived of valid debate, consultation and discussion, and key posts like Chairman and Vice-Chairman, both, are headed by one and same person and two other Members of the Committee are Joint Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/Research Officer/Assistant Research Officer posted in Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, and thereby verification of the petitioner’s case has got prejudicially affected.”

¶29

The facts of the instant case are similar to Mani Ram Baiga’s case (supra) as in the present case also the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatt has acted in dual capacity as Chairman & Vice-Chairman, both, of the Committee, which is impermissible in law. As such, the impugned order dated 27/06/2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and consequently, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for his termination (Annexure P/1) is also quashed. The matter is remitted to the duly

¶30

¶31

constituted Committee to consider and pass order afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

¶32

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-

¶33

above. No cost(s).

¶34

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶35

Harneet

Basudew Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basudew Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Saini Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) Vs Union of India

Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Mahendra Kumar Gajendra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

(Died), Purshottam Panda, Through Legal Heir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Asha Williams Vs State Of Chhattisgarh