Orissa High Court
Kalandi Charan Padhan vs State Of Odisha & Others on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36670 of 2023
Kalandi Charan Padhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Behera, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.11.2023
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Pradhan, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Behera,
learned ASC for the State opposite parties.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 18th September, 2023 passed by opposite
party No.3 and consequential direction under Annexure-6 and
further direction to restore the ST caste certificate issued to him and
his family members within a stipulated period.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion, in respect of the
petitioner's daughter, W.P.(C) No.12761 of 2015 had been filed,
which was disposed of in 2016 under Annexure-1 with a direction to
the authority concerned for a de novo inquiry with reference to
Sabik and Hal RoRs. It is further submitted that thereafter the case of
the petitioner's daughter was considered and order under Annexure-
2 was passed and therein inquiry was ordered by opposite party
No.3 vis-a-vis caste of the petitioner. It is contended that under a
mistaken belief with regard to the caste of the petitioner, opposite
party No.3 passed the impugned order vide Annexure-5 with a
conclusion that he does not belong to 'MATYA' caste. It is further
contended that the petitioner is a Schedule Tribe of caste 'MATYA'
which finds place in the Presidential Order, a copy of which is at
Annexure-4 series and hence, the decision of opposite party No.3
vide Annexure-5 is legally not tenable. It is also submitted that the
action at the behest of opposite party No.3 is not maintainable in
view of specific rules in vogue in the State which has been so held
by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vrs.
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported
in AIR 1995 SC 94 and in that connection, cited a judgment of this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 19763 of 2017 fairly admitting that the same
has been stayed in W.A. No.321 of 2023. The contention is that
when the rules are in place, the matter could not have taken
cognizance of by the committee and in that view of the matter, the
impugned order under Annexure-5 is unsustainable in law.
4. Considering the above contention, facts pleaded in the writ
petition, the Court is of the considered view that the response of the
State is necessary and accordingly, it is directed.
5. Notice.
6. Mr. Behera, learned ASC for the State accepts notice for
opposite parties and he is directed to submit reply and response
before the next date.
7. List on 7th December, 2023 for hearing and final orders
awaiting response of the State opposite parties.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A. No. 17711 of 2023
02. 1. Heard.
2. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is required to be
stayed or else the very purpose of the writ petition would be
defeated.
3. Considering the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner and materials on record, this Court,
awaiting response of the State opposite parties, as an interim
measure, stays the operation of the impugned order under
Annexure-5 till the next date.
4. List on the date fixed.
5. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Balaram Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 10-Nov-2023 14:05:36
