VIPIN KUMAR KHARADI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 09.05.2008 which has been communicated to the petitioner on 16.12.2008 passed by the High Power State Level committee constituted by the State to enquire into the caste certificate issued to various persons by which the petitioner's caste certificate has been cancelled.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person belonging to Khairwar (Kondar), scheduled tribe which is a notified scheduled tribe under the presidential notification. It is submitted that the petitioner's father, mother and uncle all have been granted certificates stating that they are persons belonging to Khairwar (Kondar) scheduled tribe category. It is further submitted that the S.D.O., Nagod had initially cancelled his caste certificate by order dated 24.02.2006, being aggrieved by which the petitioner filed W.P. No. 3799/06 before this court which was decided on 24.03.2006 by staying the order of S.D.O. and directing the authorities to refer the matter to the High Power State Level Committee. It is submitted that the committee has thereafter passed the impugned order but has not given any reason for cancelling the caste certificate nor has the authority considered or analyzed the documents on record produced by the petitioner while recording a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Kharadi- Khairwar, O.B.C. Category and not to the scheduled tribe category. The committee has also not recorded any reasons for coming to the conclusion that the ancestral work of the petitioner was making wooden toys and not collection of Katha and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it suffers from non-application of mind by the committee.

(3.) THE learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the Committee has given two opportunities to the petitioner to adduce evidence and produce all documents. The committee had also given copy of the order passed by the S.D.O. and copy of the police report and all relevant documents to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced and misconceived.