Suraj Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9284 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No.18103 of 2018


  Suraj Kumar Pradhan                              ....                      Petitioner

                                        -versus-
  State of Odisha and others                       ....             Opposite Parties

  Learned advocates appeared in this case:

  For petitioner                 :       Mr. Trilochan Barik, Advocate


  For opposite parties           :       Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA


               CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 16.08.2023

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mr. Barik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, impugned is final order dated 27th March, 2018

pronouncing his client's caste certificate to be fake.

2. He draws attention to annexure-1 being RMC no.356/83 dated

1st July, 1983. It is his client's caste certificate certifying that he

belongs to 'Kandha' tribe. This caste certificate was issued on basis of

entry in the Record of Rights (RoR) showing his father to belong to the

// 2 //

tribe. Hence, on strength of the certificate his client obtained

employment and thereafter applied and got certificates issued in

respect of his children as well.

3. He submits, impugned order is without basis. It is no matter

that his father and sisters have married into the Pano community. Fact

is that he belongs to the tribe and there is no evidence to the contrary as

would appear from impugned order. He seeks interference.

4. Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, impugned final order

does not warrant interference. It was based on inquiry made by the

Investigating Officer through Vigilance Cell, reported on letter dated

22nd February, 2009. Inquiry revealed the villagers had deposed,

petitioner belongs to Pano community. He subsequently converted to

Christianity and impugned order says that thereafter too he obtained

another caste certificate, wherein he managed to have himself

described as belonging to the tribe. She draws attention to reasoning

given in impugned order. Reason no.V is reproduced below.

"V. As regards to social cultural features, it is ascertained that the alleged is Pano by caste & Christian by religion. As surname Pradhan generally pertains to Kandha community, the alleged & his family members carrying surname of Pradhan claims to be

// 3 //

member of ST community. They observed birth & Death rituals, customs of marriage ceremonies as per the guidelines of Christian community. Moreover most of the family members of the alleged have married in Pano community even if there is no regular intermarriage between Kandha & Pano. The alleged and & his family members are well known as Pano in the area even if they carry surname Pradhan. They have not been accepted by local Kui Samaj as Kandha. However, the alleged Suraj Kumar Pradhan & his family members do not have any features of Adivasi community."

(emphasis supplied)

5. On query from Court it could not be pointed out that the

SLSC had come to find on inquiry and verification that entry in the

RoR is incorrect. It thus remains a rebuttable presumption. Relied upon

rebuttal appears to have been witness statements of villagers, who said

that petitioner and his family having had married into the Pano

community, are themselves Pano because inter caste marriage between

Kandha and Pano does not happen.

6. Perused enquiry report dated 10th January, 2009 made by

Chief Inspector of Police, Sadar Phulbani. It appears therefrom, certain

villagers bearing name 'Pradhan' had said Suraj Pradhan is Pano by

caste and he was converted to Christianity since the time of his father.

// 4 //

He and his sisters including his father had married into Pano families.

Documents examined in the enquiry show, inter alia, verification of

RoR in G. Udayagiri Tahsil to reveal that khata no.141 of village-

Ganjuguda stands recorded in name of Bholanath Pradhan, petitioner's

father, of caste 'Kandha'. Other persons names recorded in the RoR

and verified are those petitioner's sisters had married. The report also

expresses socio cultural features. It says that petitioner and his family

members are carrying surname 'Pradhan' since long. As they had been

converted to Christianity, they do not have assertion of community

identity, either of Pano Samaj or Kandha Samaj. While Kandhas look

down on Pano community, the latter looks up to the former. Hence,

conclusion that petitioner is Pano by caste and Christian by religion.

7. Petitioner does not deny he was converted. Mention of his

father's caste in the RoR is documentary evidence. On basis thereof the

caste certificate was issued as long back as on 1st July, 1983. This is

sought to be rebutted by oral statements made by persons in year, 2009,

who had been questioned by the officer. It follows that since the report

did not specifically discredit the entry in the RoR, impugned order also

did not. In the circumstances, question before the Court is whether

impugned order is based on relevant evidence? The documentary

// 5 //

evidence is being sought to be discredited by statements made by

villagers, 16 years later. The oral statements, by themselves, made to

an enquiring police officer, cannot be sustained as good basis to

disregard record of petitioner's father belonging to scheduled tribe

Kandha. The inquiry report also says that petitioner's family have been

carrying the name 'Pradhan', since long. Surname 'Pradhan' generally

pertains to 'Kandha' community. It goes on to further say that there is

divide between the two communities. Petitioner's family carrying

name 'Pradhan' since long, thereby gives rise to further presumption of

correctness in the record of his father's community identity in the RoR.

Impugned order appears not to be based on relevant evidence and

therefore, is perverse.

8. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is

disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 16-Aug-2023 18:40:26 Prasant