Disposed

Titly Haldar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Sept 2024WP(C)/21826/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while an alternative remedy exists via appeal, the petitioner was served only a one-line email rejection without reasons. The Tahasildar was directed to supply the hard copy of the rejection order to enable the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The Tahasildar was directed to supply a hard copy of the rejection order within 15 days to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 9, and the appellate authority was directed to dispose o

Titly Haldar Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.21826 of 2024

¶3

Titly Haldar

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Padhi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶11

ORDER 05.09.2024

¶12

Order No. 02.

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

2. This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the communication made to the Petitioner through e-mail dated 03.06.2023, as at Annexure-6, regarding rejection of his Application for issuance of cast certificate and direct the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Tahasildar, Tangi, Khordha to issue caste certificate as per Rule 4 (1) of the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 within a stipulated period.

¶15

3. Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State, who admits to have received copy of the writ petition, submits that in view of the alternative remedy available under section 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for SC & ST) Rules, 1980, shortly herein after “Rules, 1980”, the rejection order being appealable, the writ petition is not maintainable and the Petitioner should have preferred an Appeal in terms of the said provision under the Rules, 1980.

¶16

4. In response to the said submission made by the learned State Counsel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention to the caste certificate dated 02.03.2006 issued by

¶17

the Tahasildar, Tangi in favour of one Annapurna Ray submits, Annapurna Ray, D/o Kamalakanta Ray, submits that she belongs to the same mauza and her caste is “Namasudra Scheduled Caste”. Being directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8395 of 2004 vide order dated 13.11.2004 to consider her application within a stipulated period, the Authority concerned issued the caste certificate in her favour as “Namasudra Scheduled Caste”. Though the case of the Petitioner is similar as of Annapurna Ray, surprisingly, the Petitioner’s application for issuance of caste certificate stood rejected.

¶18

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the Caste Certificate dated 15.01.1979, as at Annexue-2, issued in favour of Manoranjan Haldar, S/o late Khagendranath Haldar further submits, Manoranjan Haldar is the grandfather of the present Petitioner, in whose favour Sub-Divisional Officer, Khordha issued a Caste Certificate to the effect that his grandfather Manoranjan Haldar belongs to sub-caste “Namasudra Scheduled Caste”.

¶19

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, his client is yet to be communicated with the rejection order enabling him to know the reason of rejection and prefer an appeal in terms of section 9 of the Act. Only an one line e-mail was sent to his client intimating him that his online application for issuance of cast certificate, registered as No.E-SCO/2023/211857, stood rejected. Hence, being remediless, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶20

7. However, since there is a provision of appeal under section 9 of the Rules, 1980, the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Tahasildar, Tangi, Khordha is directed to supply a hard copy

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

of the rejection order to the Petitioner within 15 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order enabling the Petitioner to prefer an Appeal in terms of section-9 of Rules, 1980 before the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Khordha within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said communication.

¶23

8. On preferring an Appeal within the period, as observed above, the Collector, Khordha shall do well to condone the delay, if any, and deal with and dispose of the said Appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of preferring such Appeal keeping in mind the facts detailed above. The Petitioner shall be given opportunity of personal hearing so also to produce documents before the Appellate Authority to substantiate his prayer for issuance of cast certificate in his favour, if he so prays. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the Appellate Authority to ensure disposal of his Appeal within the stipulated period.

¶24

9. With the said observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules.

(S. K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 06-Sep-2024 16:34:55

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Titly Haldar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Titly Haldar v. State of Odisha

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

Umakanta Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ahalyarani Samanta Vs Ajit Mohanty

Director, Interim Test Range,Chandipur Vs Mamata Sahani

Rama Bewa Vs Zone Officer,L.a

State of Orissa Vs Damodar Patra

Kanchan Bijay Tank Vs State