1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel and Mr. P.P.
Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling
upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the
appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued quashing/setting
aside the proceeding in FCC Case No.42/2021 before
SLSC(ND), Sambalpur and further be pleased to quash the
letter/order dtd.16.12.2025 no.14490 under Annexure-19
and letter/Notice No.13849/ SSD dtd.29.11.2025 under
Annexure-17 and on perusal of causes shown if any or upon
insufficient causes shown, make the said rule absolute and
may pass any appropriate order as deemed just and proper.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in
duty bound ever pray."
4. It is contended that even though the proceeding in question in
FCC Case No. 42 of 2021 was initiated in the file of Opp. Party No.
2 and Petitioner was noticed to appear in the said proceeding vide
letter dtd.08.08.2023, but Opp. Party No. 2 without following the
provisions contained under the Odisha SC, ST & Backward Classes,
(Regulation of Issuance of verification of Caste Certificate) Rules,
2023 (in short Rules) since is proceeding with the matter with
issuance of the notice under Annexure-17 and letter under
Annexure-19, the present writ petition was filed challenging such
action of Opp. Party No. 2.
4.1. It is contended that since in the meantime vide notification
dtd.06.01.2024 Govt. has framed the relevant 2023 Rules with
regard to conduct of the proceedings by the State Level Scrutiny
Committee, Opp. Party No. 2 without following the Rules framed
thereunder, could not have issued the notices under Annexure-17
and the letter under Annexure-19. It is accordingly contended that
Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to dispose of the proceeding in terms
of the provisions contained under the aforesaid Rules so notified on
06.01.2024.
4.2. It is also contended that this Court in similar issue while
remitting the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, directed
to dispose of similar nature of proceeding in accordance with the
2023 Rules. It is also contended that after receipt of the notice in the
proceeding, Petitioner pursuant to the earlier order passed by this
Court has already filed his reply before the Committee under
Annexure-10 series.
4.3. It is contended that even though an enquiry was conducted with
submission of the report under Annexure-7, but the enquiry officer
in the said report, came to a conclusion that no definite opinion can
be given with regard to the caste of the Petitioner and left it open for
the Committee to take a decision at their end. It is accordingly
contended that since the enquiry report does not go against the
Petitioner, basing on such enquiry report, Petitioner could not have
been noticed. It is however contended that if the proceeding will be
conducted in accordance with the aforesaid 2023 Rules with
verification of the certificates in terms of the provisions contained
under Rule 7 of the Rules, Petitioner will have no grievance.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that
since the proceeding has been initiated in the year 2021 in FCC Case
No. 42/2021, the same was taken up in terms of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil &
Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others
reported in AIR 1995 SC-94. It is accordingly contended that no
illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to the enquiry
report available under Annexure-7 and action of the Committee in
proceeding with the matter with issuance of the notices under
Annexure-17 & 19.
6. To the submission made by the learned State Counsel, learned Sr,
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying on the decision in the
case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham Others (2012) 1 SCC 333,
passed the following order in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai Vs.
State of Odisha & Others, 2023(I) OLR 614, in Para 7:-
"7. Recently this Bench had dealth with this question by
judgment dated 4th January, 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 15048 of
2022 (Kunalata Nayak V. State of Odisha and others). There
is no room for doubt , pursuant to clarificatiion by the
Supreme Court in Dayaram (supra) that Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) was judgment delivered in exercise of power
under article 142 in the Constitution. It was for purpose of
filling the vacuum in absence of legislation in those States,
where the directioins were made to operate. Here, in Odisha,
the rules prevail, as wa sfound by the bench in Kunalata
Nayak (supra)."
6.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decision of this
Court in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai as cited supra, the
proceeding cannot be dealt with in the light of the decision in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the
proceeding in question in FCC Case No. 4/2021 was initiated
against the Petitioner with issuance of the notice on 08.08.2023 and
by enclosing the enquiry report so available under Annexure-7.
7.1. This Court after going through the enquiry report, finds that the
enquiry officer though did not come to a definite conclusion with
regard to the caste of the Petitioner, but left the same open for
decision by the Committee.
7.2. Taking into account the provisions contained under the 2023
Rules so notified on 06.01.2024 and the decision in the case of
Sridhar Kumar Dalai as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that
the proceeding is required to be conducted in terms of the 2023
Rules. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs
Opp. Party No. 2 to commence the proceeding from the stage of
verification of the certificate and conclude the proceeding as
provided under Rule 7 of the 2023 Rules, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date
of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate for such
disposal of the matter within the aforesaid time period.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
