Sunil Maitry Vs State of Chhattisgarh

2 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Chairman, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Sector 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Addl. Adv. General

¶14

(Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

4-2-2026

¶17

1. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard the matter finally.

¶18

2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition (civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶19

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the present case from the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶20

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.11.2025 (bearing dispatch date 23.12.2025) (ANNEXURE P-1) with all subsequent actions and orders.

¶21

2

¶22

10.3 Any other relief(s) / order(s) / direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the issue of caste certificate of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent No. 2/High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee since long. Earlier vide order (Annexure P-11) dated 26-12-2016, the respondent No. 2 cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, which was challenged by him by filing WPC. No. 95/2017 (Sunil Maitry Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.). That writ petition was allowed by the Coordinate bench vide order (Annexure P-13) dated 24-5-2024 whereby the order dated 26-12-2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to it with direction to decide the issue afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter the case was taken up for consideration by the respondent No. 2, and four opportunities of hearing were provided to him, but all 4 times, notice issued by the respondent No. 2 were served to the petitioner after lapse of date of hearing. Thereafter, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 27-112025, respondent No. 2 passed order observing therein that despite providing 4 opportunities, the petitioner did not appear before it and sought time again and again, thus, he is causing delay to deciding the issue, whereas all the times, notices issued to the petitioner were served to him after lapse of date of hearing. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, after setting aside the

¶24

3

¶25

impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 27-11-2025, the matter be remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to decide the case afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner..

¶26

4. Learned Addl. Adv. General appearing for the State would submit that, though 4 opportunities of hearing were provided to the petitioner, but he did not appear before the respondent No. 2 and he sought time again and again. However, he further submits that if the matter is remitted back, then it will be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

6. Perusal of the order (Annexure P-13) dated 24-5-2024 passed in WPC. No. 95/2017 by the Coordinate Bench shows that, there was specific direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed 4 notices issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. (I) notice dated 4-82025, in which date of hearing was fixed as 13-8-2025; (ii) notice dated 9-9-2025 in which date of hearing was fixed on 17-9-2025; (iii) notice dated 7-11-2025 , in which date of hearing was fixed on 1411-2025; and (iv) notice dated 24-11-2025 in which date of hearing was fixed on 27-11-2025.

¶29

7. Perusal of covering memo Annexurre P-16 dated 11-8-2025, Annexure P-18 dated 8-10-2025, Annexure P-20 dated 13-11-2025 and Annexure P-22 dated 12-12-2025, shows that except Annexure P-16, other notices were served to the petitioner after date of hearing before the respondent No. 2. In such a situation, it cannot be said that, the

¶30

4

¶31

petitioner has caused delay by not appearing before it, rather it can be safely observed that, due opportunity of hearing has not been provided to him as at least, subsequent notices were served to the petitioner after the date of hearing.

¶32

8. Section 7 of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2013’) provides that :

¶33

“7. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee-

¶34

(1) The State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in this matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of this Act.

¶35

(2) The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed :

¶36

Provided that where the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee decides to arrive at an adverse finding, it shall not do so unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person whose Social Status Certificate is disputed.

¶37

5

¶38

9. Perusal of above provision of the Act of 2013 shows that it has been specifically provided that where the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee decides to arrive at an adverse finding, it shall not do so unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person whose Social Status Certificate is disputed. But in the instant case, as has been discussed above, due opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner, as provided in above provision.

¶39

10. In view of above discussion, I feel inclined to allow instant writ petition. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 2711-2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to it to pass fresh order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as envisaged under the Act of 2013 and the rules made thereunder. It is further observed that the respondent No. 2 may obtain email address from the petitioner and notice be served to him in said email address. It is also observed that, the petitioner will not cause any delay on his part in deciding the case by respondent No. 2.

¶40

11. Petitioner is directed to remain present before the respondent No. 2 on 23-2-2026 at 11.00 am.

¶41

12. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.

¶42

13. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed off.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶45

Pathak

Sunil Maitry v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Maitry 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fatima Tigga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cheruram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anupama Asthana Vs Uttam Prasad Razak

Sangeeta Mishra Vs Vicky Verma

Sanjay Nikunj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vasu Choubey Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank