Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Singh Bagdi vs The State Of M.P,And Ors. on 23 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
1 WP-3567-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3567 of 2005
MOHAN SINGH BAGDI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Appearance:
Shri J.D.Suryawanshi - learned senior counsel with Shri Kunal Suryavanshi
- learned counsel for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Shri M S Jadon - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present Petition had been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated
20.09.2006 passed by the High Level Scrutiny Committee, by which after
considering all aspects of the matter, the High Level Scrutiny Committee had not
found any illegality in the report of Tribal Research Institute, Superintendent of
Police, Vidisha and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lateri District
Vidisha and had concurred with the order dated 27.10.2001 passed by Sub-
Divisional Officer Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha by which the caste certificate of
Bagdi community issued in favour of son and daughters of the petitioner was
rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are that petitioner
belongs to Bagdi caste which falls within the category of Scheduled Caste. The
Bagdi Society members had constituted a Committee viz. Bagdi Samaj Vikas
Committee" which was registered on 08.06.1987 under the M.P. Society
Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 at serial No.18389. The petitioner is the Secretary
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
2 WP-3567-2005
of said Committee. The said Committee had its own bye-laws which were
prepared and submitted at the time of registration of Committee. The District
Coordinator, Tribal Welfare Department issued a caste certificate of Bagdi caste in
favour of one Keval Singh on 22.02.1986 who is a real brother of the petitioner.
The said Authority had certified that Shri Keval Singh belongs to Bagdi Caste.
The petitioner also belongs to Bagdi caste by birth, therefore, learned Tehsildar,
Tehsil Lateri had issued the certificates of Bagdi Caste to son and daughters of the
petitioner. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha issued
a notice dated 24/25-10-2001 to the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner had
obtained a caste certificate of Bagdi caste for one Dharmendra Singh, Surta Bai
and Gulab Bai by an improper way. The petitioner had filed reply to the said
notice on 25.10.2001 and had personally appeared before learned Sub-Divisional
Officer Lateri and submitted documents regarding Bagdi caste and prayed for time
to produce some other documents to prove his case, but learned Sub-Divisional
Officer did not grant time and passed the order dated 27.10.2001 by which the
caste certificate issued in favour of Dharmendra Singh, Surta Bai and Gulab Bai
were rejected.
3. Against the order dated 27.10.2001, the petitioner had preferred a writ
petition bearing No.595/2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 12.04.2002 with direction to the petitioner to appraoch the High Level
Committee and it was further directed that if an application/representation is filed
by the petitioner before the said Committee, the said Committee shall take
cognizance of the application/representation and proceed to dispose of the same in
accordance with law within a period fo three months from the date of filing of
application/representation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
3 WP-3567-2005
4. In compliance of the said direction, the petitioner preferred a
representation on 01.05.2002. When the direction issued by this Court on
12.04.2002 in W.P. No.595/2002 was not complied with, constrained the
petitioner filed contempt petition No. 166/2003 which was disposed of vide order
dated 31.10.2003 with a direction to the respondents to take action for getting the
matter decided in accordance with the directions issued by this Court
on 12.04.2002 in W.P. No.595/2002 within a period of further two months.
Thereafter, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee and a notice was sent to the petitioner on 08.03.2004 through the
District Coordinator, Tribal Welfare Department, Vidisha. The petitioner appeared
before the Committee on 25.03.2004 and his statement was recorded. On
27.09.2004, the matter was again put up before the State Level Scrutiny
Committee and after examination, the Committee had directed that a letter be
written to the Director, Trial Research Institute Bhopal that a detailed
investigation of this case be done by the Research Assistant and Deputy
Superintendent of Police or Inspector, Vidisha after going on the spot and submit
a report with a clear opinion. In compliance of the said direction, a report dated
14.06.2005 was submitted which was agreed to by the Superintendent of Police,
Vidisha vide report dated 06.08.2005. The said report was served on the petitioner
vide letter dated 07.06.2006 which was replied by him on 21.06.2006. Thereupon,
after considering all aspects of the matter, the Committee had not found any
illegality in the report of Tribal Research Institute, Superintendent of Police,
Vidisha and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha and
had confirmed the order dated 27.10.2001 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer
Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha. Hence, assailing the orders dated 27.10.2001
and 20.09.2006, the present petition has been filed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
4 WP-3567-2005
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned passed by
High Level Scrutiny Committee dated 20.09.2006 is unsustainable in view of the
fact that in the present case, the petitioner Mohan Singh and his brother were
granted caste certificates. It is contended by the counsel that there was no reason
to deprive son and daughters of the petitioner from possessing the caste certificate
of Bagri caste. It is contended by the counsel that High Level Scrutiny Committee
had ventured upon to enquire the caste status of the son and daughters of the
petitioner and proceeded to observe that the customs which the petitioner follows
do not match with the customs which are followed by a Member who belongs to
caste Bagri. The High Level Scrutiny Committee was also required to appreciate
that petitioner and his brother were issued caste certificate. Unfortunately, in view
of the certain report which was issued by the Tribal Research Institute, the High
Level Scrutiny Committee decided not to issue caste certificate in favour of son
and daughters of petitioners and had confirmed the order dated 27.10.2001 passed
by Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha. It is contended by the
counsel the order if read between the lines would reveal that there is an attempt by
High Level Scrutiny Committee not to grant caste certificate to the son and
daughters of petitioner under the garb of report issued by Tribal Research Institute
dated 14.6.2005. It is contended by the counsel that the vigilence report dated
27.06.2005 which was in favour of petitioner was not considered while passing the
impugned order dated 20.09.2006. It is contended by the counsel that the caste of a
person is to be determined on the basis of his or her birth. As the present petitioner
and his son and daughters were born Bagri by caste, there was no occasion for the
Sub-Divisional Officer to pass the order dated 27.10.2001 by which the caste
certifiate of Bagdi community issued in favour of son and daughters of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
5 WP-3567-2005
petitioner was rejected. It is thus contended by the counsel that the petitions
deserve to be allowed and the report of State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and
order dated 27.10.2001 passed by the SDO be quashed.
6. Per contra counsel for State submits that it was noticed by the
Government that certain members who belonged to Rajput community which is a
general category were availing the benefit while projecting themselves to be
members of Bagri community and, therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of
members of the Bagri community, it was decided to scrutinize the cases in District
Vidisha inasmuch as number of caste certificate to the persons who were not
eligible for the same were issued. It is thus contended by the counsel that caste
certificates issued in favour of son and daughters of petitioner were rightly
rejected as the custom/tradition which the petitioner follows was taken note of by
High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee while passing the impugned order dated
20.09.2006 and the same requires no interference.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. A perusal of the record reflects that the Sub Divisional Officer vide order
dated 27.10.2001 rejected the caste certificate issued in favour of son and
daughters of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was put up before High Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee under the orders of this Court. The High Level Scrutiny
Committee had directed the Director, Tribal Research Institute to get the matter
investigated by Research Assistant and Deputy Superintendent of Police or
Inspector, Vidisha after going on the spot and submit a report. Thereafter, the
Tribal Research Institute vide its letter dated 14.06.2005 forwarded its report
which was agreed by the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha vide its letter dated
06.08.2005. The High Level Scrutiny Committee after considering the report dated
14.06.2005, had confirmed the order dated 27.10.2001 passed by the SDO by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
6 WP-3567-2005
which the caste certificates of son and daughters of petitioner were rejected. From
perusal of report dated 14.06.2005, it is reflected that in the report, the
customs/traditions which are followed by members of the Bagri community have
been discused and it was concluded that since the petitioner does not follow the
said customs which are followed by the Members of the Bagri community, present
petitioner was not entitled for grant of caste certificate pertaining to caste Bagri.
9. The bone of contention of the petitioner in the present matter is that
report of Vigilance Officer was in favour of the petitioner which was not
considered while passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2006. The petitioner
belongs to caste "Bagri" is a question which requires to be dealt with by the High
Power Committee after sifting of evidence which is to be adduced by the
petitioners in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner reported in 1994 SCC (6) 241. The similar
view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Daytaram Vs.
Sudhir Batham reported in 2012(1) SCC 333. The relevant paras of the said
judgment read as under:-:
"13(5) Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge
and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence
and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or
in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he
originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify
and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or
the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
7 WP-3567-2005
school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the
parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such
other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate
and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars
as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial
of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities
concerned etc."
In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be
genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the
report or the particulars given are produced or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is
envisaged in para 6 be followed. As per Para 13(5), the Vigilance
Officer is required to conduct an inquiry in following manner:
(i) Inspector would go to local place of residence of the
claimant; (ii) He shall visit the original place; (iii) The Inspector shall
visit the town from which the claimant originally hails from;
(iv) He shall personally verify the school record, birth register;
(v) He shall examine the parents/guardians and such other persons from
whom information can be gathered;
(vi) The said officer shall in particular examine the trade, deity,
ritual, custom, mode of marriage, death ceremonies and method of
burial of claimant's community. This is the method prescribed in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case with a view to trace the anthropological
and ethnological history of the claimant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
8 WP-3567-2005
In para 13(7) the Apex Court held as under: "13(7). In case the
report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no
further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars
14 given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and
in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be
followed."
In para 13(7) aforesaid it has been held that in case the report is in favour of
the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken
except where the reports of the members given are procured and found to be
fraudulently obtained The conjoint reading of paras 13(5) and 13(7) would show
that the authority is required to conduct an enquiry as per the method and manner
prescribed in aforesaid para and collect evidence in the same manner. The report
should be prepared on the basis of aforesaid material. The Caste Verification
Committee is required to apply its mind on the genuineness and correctness of the
report. A microscopic reading of para 13(7) of the judgment would show that when
the report is found to be genuine and true then only no further action need be taken
by the committee. However, while examining genuineness or trueness of the said
report, needless to mention that the committee is to be guided by para 13(5) of the
said judgment. In other words, it is obligatory on the part of the S.P. to conduct an
enquiry in a manner prescribed in para 13(5) of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra). Thus, the basic question is whether the aforesaid reports of vigilance
officer were prepared in consonance with para 13(5) and whether the committee
has erred in proceeding further despite favourable reports.
10. In the present case, the report of the vigilance report dated 27.06.2005,
which contains the reference of an inquiry shows that petitioner Mohan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
9 WP-3567-2005
himself has not received any benefit of Scheduled Castes. It is also mentioned in
the report that in the photocopies of the record, in the names of petitioner and his
relatives word "Bagri (Bagdi)" is mentioned. Nephew of the petitioner has
received scholarship from Shri Krishan High School Vidisha. The certificate of the
petitioner was issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil Lateri in the year 1989 was legally
issued. It is mentioned in the report that prior to 1950 he was residing in gram
Seharkheda and thereafter he started residing at gram Madankhedi. The statements
of some other persons of village Madankhedi have been recorded in which they
have stated that the petitioner is a native inhabitant of village Shaharkhedi which
is 8-9 km. far away from village Madankehdi. If this report is tested on the anvil
of Para 13(5) of the judgment of Madhuri Patil, it will be clear that the Vigilance
report fulfils the condition No.(i) to (v) mentioned above.
11. As analyzed above, if report of Vigilance Officer is true and genuine, it
is binding on the Caste Verification Committtee. The genuineness and trueness
need to be tested by examining the manner and method by which report has been
prepared. As a thumb rule, it cannot be said that even cryptic report of Vigilance
Officer is binding on the Committee. If report is not prepared in consonance with
the mandate of Para 13(5) of the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra), it is open to
the Caste Verification Committee to proceed further and decide the caste status of
the candidate on merits. This view is taken by this Court in 2012 (3) MPLJ 199
(Rajendra Singh Saluja Vs. State of M.P. and others).
12. As noticed, in the present case, the Vigilance Officer's report is by and
large in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra).
Thus, the said report was binding on the Caste Verification Committee. The Caste
Verification Committee, without assigning any reason as to why the report of
Vigilance Officer/Superintendent of Police did not suit it, proceeded further and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1384
10 WP-3567-2005
committed an error in taking a different view.
13. This Court in the case of Gokul Prasad Vs. State Level Committee,
(2012) 1 MPLJ 359 held that the proceedings and findings of Caste Verification
Committee are quasi-judicial in nature. The action of obtaining a false certificate
is not only a fraud on the society, it is fraud played on the Constitution as well.
The consequence of cancellation of caste certificate of a candidate may be drastic.
It may lead to civil and criminal consequences. He may lose his employment,
occupation or admission, as the case may be, which was obtained on the basis of
aforesaid caste status. Therefore, it is necessary that these matters are dealt with
carefully by adopting a fair and transparent procedure by the Caste Verification
Committee.
14. Since the High Level Scrutiny Committee had not considered the
vigilance report dated 27.06.2005 while passing the impugned order dated
20.09.2006 which is mandatory as per Para 13(5) of the judgment passed in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), therefore, the impugned order dated
20.09.2006 is bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2009
passed by High Level Scrutiny Committee is hereby set-aside. The matter is
remanded back to the High Level Scrutiny Committee to call a fresh report and
take an appropriate decision thereafter.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
