ANJANI BAI BAIGA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of order/notice dtd. 4/7/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 namely Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Pendarwa. It is the case of the petitioner that because of some personal animosity, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner before respondent No. 2, impugned notice dtd. 4/7/2025 has been issued to the petitioner asking to produce her certificate on 24/7/2025 failing which appropriate action will be taken against her.

(3.) Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that notice issued by. respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/1 is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The caste certificate can be verified by the caste Scrutiny Government in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v Commissioner, Tribal Development in (1994) 6 SCC 241 followed with approval in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v Ajit P.K. Jogi and Others in (2011) 10 SCC 357 further followed in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others in (2017) 8 SCC 670 and lastly followed in the matter of The Chief Regional Officer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pradip and Anr. in (2010) 11 SCC 144, therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside.