GOKUL PRASAD Vs. STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained a certificate Annexure P-3 dated 2.11.1982 certifying that he belongs to BHUNJIYA" caste which is notified Scheduled tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, subsequently pursuant to some complaint, the High Level Caste Verification Committee took cognizance of the matter and by the impugned order dated 17.7.2007 cancelled the aforesaid caste certificate of the petitioner. This cancellation order Annexure P-2 is called in question in the present writ petition. Shri Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., 1995 AIR(SC) 94 the Vigilance Officer/Superintendent of Police (SP) prepared and filed two reports before the Committee, which are annexed with the petition at page 42 and 46 respectively. By placing reliance on these two reports of the SP, Shri Dalal submits that both the reports clearly show that the petitioner's caste was found to be 'Bhunjiya' and reports are in his favour. By drawing the attention on the circular of G.A.D., filed by the respondents as Annexure R-2 dated 8.9.1997, Shri Dalal further submits that in clause 3, it is made crystal clear that where the report of the Vigilance Officer is in favour of the petitioner, the Caste Verification Committee is not required to take any further action. The next submission of Shri Dalal is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order where as as per the judgment of Madhuri Patil and the judgment of Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, 2006 AIR(SCW) 6093 It is made clear that the proceedings before the screening committee is quasi judicial in nature and it was obligatory on the part of the said committee to deal with the every aspect of the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order. He submits that the impugned order is basically an ipse-dixit of the committee and no reasons are assigned for arriving the said conclusion.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is strange that basic reason for cancelling the certificate is Section 80 CPC notice issued by an Advocate. Learned Counsel while criticising the order submits that the procedure adopted by the committee is totally unknown to law. In support of this he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sudhir Batham vs. M.P. State Level Committee,2004 2 MPJR 22 for Verification of Caste Certificate. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 2009 Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra and others. By relying on para 10 of the judgment, learned Counsel submits that the committee has committed an error of law in deciding the matter against him.

(3.) Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer supported the order passed by the Verification Committee and submits that it is open to the verification committee to decide whether the report submitted by the S.P. is to be relied upon or not. In other words, he submits that the Caste Certificate Committee is not bound by the order of the S.P. and in case it has any doubt or is not satisfied with the report of the S.P., the committee can still proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil . He placed reliance on para 6 of his return which shows that one certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the M.L.A. and the Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Sehore. The petitioner on the strength, of this certificate obtained caste certificate which was rightly cancelled by the aforesaid Committee.