Ramesh Chandra Dora Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. M. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶13

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued quashing/setting aside the proceeding in FCC Case No.42/2021 before SLSC(ND), Sambalpur and further be pleased to quash the letter/order dtd.16.12.2025 no.14490 under Annexure-19 and letter/Notice No.13849/ SSD dtd.29.11.2025 under Annexure-17 and on perusal of causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes shown, make the said rule absolute and may pass any appropriate order as deemed just and proper.

¶14

Page 1 of 5.

¶15

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶16

It is contended that even though the proceeding in question in FCC Case No. 42 of 2021 was initiated in the file of Opp. Party No. 2 and Petitioner was noticed to appear in the said proceeding vide letter dtd.08.08.2023, but Opp. Party No. 2 without following the provisions contained under the Odisha SC, ST & Backward Classes, (Regulation of Issuance of verification of Caste Certificate) Rules, 2023 (in short Rules) since is proceeding with the matter with issuance of the notice under Annexure-17 and letter under Annexure-19, the present writ petition was filed challenging such action of Opp. Party No. 2.

¶17

4.1. It is contended that since in the meantime vide notification dtd.06.01.2024 Govt. has framed the relevant 2023 Rules with regard to conduct of the proceedings by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, Opp. Party No. 2 without following the Rules framed thereunder, could not have issued the notices under Annexure-17 and the letter under Annexure-19. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to dispose of the proceeding in terms of the provisions contained under the aforesaid Rules so notified on 06.01.2024.

¶18

4.2. It is also contended that this Court in similar issue while remitting the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, directed to dispose of similar nature of proceeding in accordance with the 2023 Rules. It is also contended that after receipt of the notice in the proceeding, Petitioner pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court has already filed his reply before the Committee under Annexure-10 series.

¶19

Page 2 of 5.

¶20

4.3. It is contended that even though an enquiry was conducted with submission of the report under Annexure-7, but the enquiry officer in the said report, came to a conclusion that no definite opinion can be given with regard to the caste of the Petitioner and left it open for the Committee to take a decision at their end. It is accordingly contended that since the enquiry report does not go against the Petitioner, basing on such enquiry report, Petitioner could not have been noticed. It is however contended that if the proceeding will be conducted in accordance with the aforesaid 2023 Rules with verification of the certificates in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the Rules, Petitioner will have no grievance.

¶21

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the proceeding has been initiated in the year 2021 in FCC Case No. 42/2021, the same was taken up in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others reported in AIR 1995 SC-94 . It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to the enquiry report available under Annexure-7 and action of the Committee in proceeding with the matter with issuance of the notices under Annexure-17 & 19.

¶22

To the submission made by the learned State Counsel, learned Sr, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying on the decision in the case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham Others (2012) 1 SCC 333 , passed the following order in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai Vs. State of Odisha & Others , 2023(I) OLR 614, in Para 7:-

¶23

“7. Recently this Bench had dealth with this question by judgment dated 4^th January, 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 15048 of

¶24

Page 3 of 5.

¶25

2022 (Kunalata Nayak V. State of Odisha and others). There is no room for doubt , pursuant to clarificatiion by the Supreme Court in Dayaram (supra) that Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) was judgment delivered in exercise of power under article 142 in the Constitution. It was for purpose of filling the vacuum in absence of legislation in those States, where the directioins were made to operate. Here, in Odisha, the rules prevail, as wa sfound by the bench in Kunalata Nayak (supra).”

¶26

6.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai as cited supra, the proceeding cannot be dealt with in the light of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil .

¶27

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question in FCC Case No. 4/2021 was initiated against the Petitioner with issuance of the notice on 08.08.2023 and by enclosing the enquiry report so available under Annexure-7.

¶28

7.1. This Court after going through the enquiry report, finds that the enquiry officer though did not come to a definite conclusion with regard to the caste of the Petitioner, but left the same open for decision by the Committee.

¶29

7.2. Taking into account the provisions contained under the 2023 Rules so notified on 06.01.2024 and the decision in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that the proceeding is required to be conducted in terms of the 2023 Rules. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to commence the proceeding from the stage of

¶30

Page 4 of 5.

¶31

verification of the certificate and conclude the proceeding as provided under Rule 7 of the 2023 Rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate for such disposal of the matter within the aforesaid time period.

¶32

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶33

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶34

Sneha

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 02-Feb-2026 15:26:10

¶37

Page 5 of 5.

Ramesh Chandra Dora v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Dora v. State of Odisha

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

Renubala Swain Vs Tata Power Centra(Tpcodl) Odisha Distribution Ltd., Bhubaneswar

M.C. of Sri Sidheswar High School, Badachadhiapada Vs Dr.N.Thirumala Naik, I.A.S

Samir Behera Vs State of Odisha

Anadi Charan Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Pravati Patra Vs State of Odisha

Tiki Badar Vs State of Odisha