SUBARNAMALA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Barik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, inspite of conclusion of Fake Caste Certificate case against his client, again there has been initiation of another. He submits, this is not permissible in law. He draws attention to final order dtd. 28/3/2009 in Fake Caste Certificate Case no.50 of 2008 against his client, whereby it was unanimously held that the allegation is not a fact and reasons given. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. Direction-11 in paragraph 12, is reproduced below.

(2.) Interference is necessary to quash letters dtd. 24/5/2022 and 19/11/2022 since, by final order dtd. 28/3/2009, allegation that his client's caste certificate was fake, was said to be not a fact and false. He draws attention to previous order dtd. 2/12/2022.

(3.) Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. She draws attention to annexure A/3 in the counter. It is letter dtd. 17/5/2012 written by the Collector and District Magistrate to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee, on subject of reopening of the fake caste certificate case decided in favour of petitioner. The letter refers to findings of inquiry extracted therein. We reproduce the same.