Orissa High Court
Rajkrishna Bhoi vs State Of Orissa And Others on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11115 of 2009
(Through hybrid mode)
Rajkrishna Bhoi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. A.K. Nanda, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUDGMENT
17.11.2022
M.C. Nos.9059 of 2009, 10561 of 2009,
19556 of 2015 &5723 of 2011
1. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
and submits, impugned is, inter alia, final order dated 30th June, 2009
made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee concluding that
petitioner does not belong to Kandha (Scheduled Tribe).
2. He submits, his client has two grounds of challenge. Firstly, he
was not heard and secondly, directions/guidelines by judgment of the
Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
// 2 //
Development reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 regarding both notice and
enquiry were not followed. He relies on procedural guidelines (5) and
(6) in paragraph-12.
3. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on impugned final
order to submit, it was duly made upon giving opportunity to
petitioner and contains basis and reasons. There should not be
interference.
4. Guideline (5) in Madhuri Patil (supra) is regarding issuance of
social status certificate. Case at hand is, the certificate already issued
was declared fake. Hence, the enquiry made by Investigating Officer
(I.O.) pursuant to the State Level Scrutiny Committee entering into the
allegation of issuance of fake certificate, is different than one made for
the purpose of issuance of the certificate. In the circumstances, it is
guideline (6) that appears to be relevant for petitioner.
5. Guideline (6) as in the judgment is reproduced below.
"6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from
the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status
to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or
wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue
show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the
vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post
// 3 //
with acknowledgement due or through the head of the
educational institution concerned in which the candidate
is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that
the representation or reply, if any, would be made within
two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in
no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of
the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for
an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be
made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the committee and the
Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian
to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public
notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may
be published in the village or locality and if any person
or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to
adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the
Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient
and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by
the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order
with brief reasons in support thereof."
6. It appears from impugned final order that petitioner was
noticed on the State Level Scrutiny Committee taking cognizance of
the allegation, of him having had obtained fake caste certificate.
Petitioner submitted show cause reply and requested personal hearing
before the committee. However, he did not appear before the
// 4 //
committee so no statement from him was recorded. In the premises,
aforesaid guideline (6) was applied by causing issuance of letter dated
23rd May, 2009, for publicity in concerned village on issuance of
public notice by beat of drum. Court is satisfied that this was done
since, one objection was received. Hence, said guideline regarding
opportunity of hearing to petitioner to be given, stood satisfied.
7. The committee found from the report that petitioner is neither
natural born nor adopted son of Niranjan Bhoi, the person, who he
claimed was his father. He is son of third wife of said Niranjan Bhoi,
conceived after his death.
8. Mr. Nayak submits further on drawing attention to annexures
4 and 5 that his client was noticed to appear before the committee on
14th May, 2009 but the notice reached his client on 14th May, 2009
itself, in Bolangir. Appearance was to be in Bhubaneswar. It was
impossible for him to attend. The statements have been made in
paragraph-7 of the writ petition. No counter has been filed.
9. Regarding contention of petitioner that he was prevented from
appearing before the committee on late receipt of the notice, query
was made for disclosed material in the writ petition, to show that
petitioner is son of Niranjan Bhoi. Nothing has been disclosed. In the
circumstances, grievance of being prevented from appearing and
// 5 //
availing personal hearing cannot stand since petitioner has disclosed
impugned final order, which clearly says he is not the son of Niranjan
Bhoi and in the writ petition challenging said order, no material to
show otherwise has been disclosed.
10. In view of aforesaid Court does not find any illegality nor
material irregularity in the making of impugned final order.
11. The writ petition does not disclose any merit. It is dismissed.
Interim order stands vacated and all the applications are accordingly
disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
