Gauhati High Court
Jank Lal Basumatary vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 23 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010237402022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7508/2022
JANK LAL BASUMATARY
S/O- LATE MRIGENDRA NATH BASUMATARY, R/O- WARD NO. 7, P.O., P.S.
AND DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783370.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES
AND BACKWARD CLASSES, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
WPT AND BC DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R DHAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, WPT AND BC
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 23-11-2022
1. Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that
the petitioner had submitted a complaint to the Chairman, State Level
Scrutiny Committee on 11.06.2019, for causing an enquiry regarding
issuance of a fake Scheduled Tribal (Plain) certificate. Though the
Government of Assam, Department For Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backward
Classes had issued a notification dated 11.05.2018, constituting the State
Level Scrutiny Committee in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, the committee has
not acted upon the petitioner's complaint till date.
2. Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the WPT & BC Department submits that
the person against whom the complaint has been made by the petitioner has
not been made a party in the writ petition. He further submits that there is
nothing stated in the pleadings, with regard to whom the complaint has been
made.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. Though Annexure-1 is the complaint dated 11.06.2019 made by the
petitioner, praying for cancellation of the ST(P) certificate issued to one Sri Naba
Kr. Sarania, the said Sri Naba Kr. Sarania has not been made a party in this writ
petition.
5. Besides the above, there is no averment made by the petitioner that the
issuance of the ST(P) certificate to the said Naba Kr. Sarania has violated any
Page No.# 3/5
fundamental or legal right of the petitioner.
6. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Apex Court has held
that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either
for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a
complaint by the applicant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the
part of the authorities. It also held that the Court can enforce the performance
of a statutory duty, using it's writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided
that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. Thus, the existence of such a right is a condition precedent for
invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Courts and that legal right that can be
enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of
infractions of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the
same. The Apex Court held that a legal right means an entitlement arising out
of legal rules. The expression, 'person aggrieved' does not include a person who
suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury. A person aggrieved must,
therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardized. The Apex Court has in paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the
above judgment stated as follows:-
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to
meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he
falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has
suffered, or suffered from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order,
etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right,
or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach
of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a
Page No.# 4/5
judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which
writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the
performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction
at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that
he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such
right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts.
It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief
prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of
such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the
Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of
the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and
approaches the Court for relief as regards the same.
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it
may be define as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the
rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person
who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved
must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been
adversely affected or jeopardized."
7. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that his legal
right has been effected, in any manner because of the issuance of the ST(P)
certificate to the said Naban Kr. Sarania.
8. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and as such cannot pray for a writ of
mandamus from this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, as the petitioner
has submitted a complaint to the respondent No. 3 on 11.06.2019, the
respondent No. 3 is directed to take a decision on the petitioner's complaint
dated 11.06.2019, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of
Page No.# 5/5
a certified copy of this order and communicate its decision to the petitioner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
