Santosh Kumar Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 912 Chatt

                                                  1




                                                                                    NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                     WPC No. 892 of 2022
     Santosh Kumar Meshram S/o Late Tejram Meshram Aged About 42 Years R/o
     Behind Titurdih Housing Board Colony Near Reliance Towners Shivaji Nagar,
     Titurdih Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                            Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal
             Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
     2.      The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dondi Lohara, District Balod,
             Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

22/02/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the

respondents for issuance of a permanent caste certificate. According to

the petitioner, he belongs to the scheduled caste category and belongs to

'Mahar' community.

2. The petitioner had moved an application online on 04.10.2020 before the

competent authority i.e. the respondent No.2 for issuance of a caste

certificate. According to the petitioner, he is born and brought up in State

of Chhattisgarh and his parents were working in the State of Chhattisgarh

and therefore he is entitled for issuance of the caste certificate.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities had sought for

various documents from the petitioner enabling him to receive the caste

certificate. However, since many of the documents were not available in

custody of the petitioner, he has submitted an inability memo as is

required under Form 3C before the concerned authority. However, inspite

of that the respondents have till date not scrutinized the claim of the

petitioner and the certificate has till date not been issued certifying the

social status of the petitioner.

4. The State Government taking into consideration the directives given by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil &

Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others"

reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and the subsequent judgments framed had

enacted specific law in this regard known as 'The Chhattisgarh

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes

(Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013'. Pursuant to the

said Act the government had also enacted the Rules under this Act known

as 'The Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules,

2013'.

5. The aforementioned Act and Rules provide for a mechanism as to how a

person has to apply for issuance of the certificate, the procedure and

requirement at the time of filing of the application in the event of the

payment not having all the requisite documents. The remedy then

available to him and the manner and inquiry has to be conducted by the

respondents authorities before a final decision is taken.

6. Rule 6 of the aforementioned Rules of 2013 specifically deals with the

issue of submission of inability memo and who could not inspite of

adequate efforts at the required documents as per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3.

He was required to give an affidavit expressing his inability to submit said

documents in the prescribed form i.e. Form 3C. The inability certificate

was thereafter to be submitted before the competent authority, who in turn

thereafter was required to proceed and inquire on the claim of the

petitioner as per Rule 8, which deals with the procedure for conducting of

an inquiry.

7. In the instant case though the application has been submitted by the

petitioner as earlier as on 04.10.2020 and considerable time has lapsed,

the writ petition as of now stands disposed of directing the respondent

No.2 to ensure that the application of the the petitioner is processed at

the earliest and an appropriate inquiry be conducted in terms of the

inability certificate that the petitioner has furnished, keeping in view Rule

8 of the aforementioned Rules of 2013 and an appropriate final decision

be taken within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the

copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed

of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved