Ramani Chetti Vs State of Odisha

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.26402 of 2025, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of directing the District Collector to transmit the appeal papers of the petitioner to the Sub-Collector and on such transmission, the SubCollector has been directed to dispose of the appeal within an outer limit of six months.

¶18

Initially, the petitioner-appellant has filed the writ petition inter alia seeking the following prayer:-

¶19

<(i) Admit this writ petition;

¶20

(ii) Issued notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records;

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

(iii) Issue appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions, Order/Orders directing the Opposite Party / Respondent No. 2 to investigate the mater pertaining to the inaction of the Opposite Party / Respondent No. 4 & 5 on the representation, dated: 05.09.2025 submitted by the Petitioner against the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 6 & 7, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment passed in Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI (2014 AIR SC 2140) as well as interim direction to the Opposite Party/ Respondent No. 4 to issue the scheduled caste certificate to the Petitioner, in view of the Apex court Judgment passed in Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. State of Mahrastra (2025 INSC 964).=

¶23

3. The petitioner/appellant besides relying upon the Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 (for short the Rules, 1980) attempted to derive his rights to be declared as schedule caste from the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Rebeka Mathai vrs. State of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.27063 of 2019 (2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 330) and the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16069 of 2023.

¶24

4. Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 emphasized by the appellant to substantiate his case reads as under:-

¶25

<9. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by a competent authority subordinate to that of District Magistrate / Collector may prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate/Collector concerned and to the concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner where the original order is passed by the District Magistrate/ Collector, within a period 30 days of passing of such order. The orders passed by the District

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Magistrate or the Revenue Divisional Commissioner on such appeal petition shall be final.=

¶28

The rule commands that if any person aggrieved by an order passed by the competent authority subordinate to the District Magistrate/Collector has right to prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate/Collector concerned and the District Magistrate/Collector is duty bound to decide the appeal within a period of thirty days.

¶29

5. In the instant case, the writ petitioner9s prayer for issuance of caste certificate has been rejected vide order dated 06.07.2025. Against which, he has preferred an appeal under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980, which ought to have been decided by the District Magistrate/Collector within the time stipulated under the Rules. However, the Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal. Hence, he has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge although rightly directed the appeal to be decided by the authority concerned but relegated the appeal filed by the petitioner on 13.06.2025 to the Sub-Collector instead of District Magistrate/ Collector and asked him to decide the appeal within six months. The said direction is contrary to the mandate of the Rule.

¶30

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the power vested under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980 on District Magistrate/Collector could not have been relegated to any Officer below the rank of the Collector or District Magistrate.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

7. Learned counsel for the State does not have serious objection to such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

8. Taking into consideration the aforementioned rule position, the judgment cited at the Bar and the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we feel it suffice to modify the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the District Magistrate/Collector shall decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of thirty days as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980.

¶34

9. With such modification, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶35

(Manash Ranjan Pathak)

¶36

Judge

¶37

(Sibo Sankar Mishra)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Swarna