Orissa High Court
Kishore Ku. Bag vs Chairman on 8 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.856 of 2013
Kishore Ku. Bag
.... Petitioner
Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, Advocate
-versus-
Chairman, State Level,
S.C.-cum-RDC & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 08.11.2024
19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the final order passed by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee (in short the 'Committee') on
18.10.2012 in Fake Certificate Case No.02/11 (SBP).
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
even though Petitioner was born to his natural parents
namely Mahadev Bag @ Bina, but in the year 1975 he
was adopted by his adopted father namely Mahadev Bag
@ Ganapati. Such adoption of the Petitioner in the year
1975 was decreed vide judgment and decree
// 2 //
dtd.31.10.2011 in C.S. No.109 of 2010 by the learned
Civil Judge, (Senior) Division, Sambalpur.
4.1. It is contended that even though adoption of the
present Petitioner by his adopted father who belongs to
Scheduled Caste Community was decreed by the learned
Civil Court in the aforesaid suit, but the said documents
erroneously could not be produced before the State Level
Scrutiny Committee, who has in seisin of the matter in
Fake Certificate Case No.02/11(SBP). Because of such
wrong committed by the Petitioner, the Committee vide
the impugned order held the Petitioner having not belong
to Scheduled Caste category and accordingly directed for
cancellation of the certificate so issued in his favour way
back in the year 1985 vide RMC No.197 of 1985 of
Tahasildar, Samabalpur.
4.2. It is contended that since the adoption of the
Petitioner by his adoptive father has been decreed and his
adoptive father belong to Scheduled Caste Category,
which is not disputed no illegality or irregularity has been
committed by the Tahasildar while issuing the caste
certificate in favour of the Petitioner in RMC No.197 of
1985.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decree
passed in C.S. No.109 of 2010, the final order passed by
the Committee is not sustainable in the eye of law and
requires interference of this Court.
// 3 //
5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate
for the State on the other hand contended that even
though Petitioner was declared as the adopted son of his
father Mahadev Bag @ Ganapati, who belong to
Scheduled Caste category, but the said document should
have been produced by the Petitioner before the
Committee. Since that document was never produced, no
illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned
order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court taking into
account the decree passed in favour of the Petitioner in
C.S. No.109 of 2010 is of the view of that the matter
requires a fresh adjudication by the Committee.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order
dtd.18.10.2012 so passed by the Committee in Fake
Certificate Case No.02/11 (SBP) vide Annexure-10. While
quashing this same, this Court remits the matter to the
Committee to take a fresh decision with regard to the
allegation made against the Petitioner for having obtained
a fake caste certificate. The Committee is directed to take
a fresh decision by giving opportunity of hearing to all
concerned within a period of six (6) months from the date
of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to provide
certified copy of the decree passed in C.S. No.109 of 2010
along with copy of this order before the Committee on or
before 29.11.2024.
// 4 //
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
