Present vs .
2022 Latest Caselaw 1017 Tri

                                Page 1 of 5


                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA

                             WA NO.70 OF 2022
  The State of Tripura
  Vs.
  Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar.

          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY


  Present:
  For the Appellant(s)           : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.

  For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.

06.12.2022

Order

This instant appeal has been filed under Chapter V(A) High

Court Rules seeking the following reliefs:-

" a) Admit the appeal & call for records.

b) Pass order setting aside the judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Hon‟ble Single Bench in WP(C) No.462 of 2021.

c) Pass order staying the operation of the Judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Hon‟ble Single Bench in WP(C) No.462 OF 2021.

d) Pass any other order or orders as deem fit & proper having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case."

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the

appellant-State submitted that the learned Single Judge in

passing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2022

erred in both facts and law and to support his argument,

learned Addl. G.A. relied upon Paras-20,21 & 22 of the

Judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in

2007(6)Mh.L.J.36 titled as Vijaykumar s/O Madhukar

Ingle Vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and ors.,

which is reproduced herein-under:-

"20. This Court further finds that various judgments cited from the side of petitioner were rendered when Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the executive directions contained in case of Ku. Madhuri Patil. Now the situation that exists stands on much different footing.

The Scrutiny in question i.e. in present case is done furtherance to provisions of The Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, which is enacted on the lines of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case, yet with much distinction.

While it is a fact that any of the directions contained in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case have not in any manner been interfered by the said statutory enactment, the aspect of burden of proof of Tribe/caste claim which inherently has to be on the person who claims any particular caste/Tribe has been further structified by enacting section 8, which reads as follows:

8 ...Burden of proof.

Where an application is made to the Competent Authority under section 3 for the issue of a Caste Certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category and in any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority and Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate Authority under this Act or any trial of offence under this Act, the burden of proving that the person belonged to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on such claimant applicant.

21. Now the scheme of the Act and rules provides for calling of the Vigilance Cell Report. If after the perusal of the report of irrespective of Vigilance Cell, whether the report of the Vigilance Cell which may be favourable or unfavourable to the claimant, the Scrutiny Committee finds that the claim requires to be proved by the candidate, the candidate is to be put to prove of his claim by such legal evidence as may be available at his command or which can be summoned with the aid and assistance of the Committee. In no manner, any duty or burden is seen fastened on the Committee requiring the Committee be proactive and search the evidence or proof supporting the candidates claim of caste/Tribe or contrary.

22. It needs to be noted that law does not create any presumption that a certificate once issued by the competent authority carries any presumptive value. In fact, the certificate when issued is, on the very issuance, valid only subject to scrutiny. Therefore, whenever the matter reaches the Scrutiny Committee, and the Scrutiny Committee directs the candidate to prove claim, the claimant has to prove his claim like any other fact as is required to be proved before any other Court of law or Tribunal according to law in existence. It would, therefore, be contrary to Section 8 to expect that the Scrutiny Committee shall to take a lead to disprove the objection to the certificate or prove any suspicion that has been raised in relation to worthiness and truthfulness of caste claim or evidence produced by candidate.

Learned Addl. G.A. has also relied upon para-20 and

21 of the Judgment of this Court reported in 2015(1) TLR

309 titled as Maran Sarkar Vs. The State of Tripura and

ors., dated 10.06.2014 which is reproduced as herein-

under:-

"20. Whether for non-examination of the person who issued the status certificate the finding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside?

The petitioner has surprised us by raising this question inasmuch as he himself in his representation has stated that the xamination of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who issued the status certificate was irrelevant and uncalled for. Notwithstanding that, the observation of the apex court in Sayanna is related to the circumstances of that case. In that case, the status certificate was allegedly interpolated by adding the word „lu‟ for converting Mannerwar into Mannerwarlu. Mannerwarlu is recognized as the Scheduled Tribe but Mannerwar is not recognized as Scheduled Tribe. In that context, nonexamination of the officer who had issued the certificate concerned appeared relevant for purpose of determining whether there was any interpolation or not. Thus, that observation cannot have any manner of application in the present case.

21. On whom does the fundamental duty of proving the status lie?

There cannot be ambivalence that the fundamental duty of proving the status certificate always lies with the person who claims such status when the Vigilance Officer has found materials which demonstrate that the petitioner does not belong to Mahishyadas community. It was the petitioner‟s duty to rebut such

materials by placing the cogent evidence in support of his status. It is admitted that such burden has not been discharged by the petitioner. As such, we are fully satisfied the findings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee do not suffer from any infirmity."

Learned G.A. further relied upon the Division Bench

Judgment of this Court number as WA No.110 of 2012 titled

as Sri Partha Das @ Partha Kumar Das Vs. The State of

Tripura and ors., dated 09.10.2018 to substantiate his

argument.

Mr. Somik Deb learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.

Dey, learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment

and order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and

proper and needs no interference.

Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

The judgments relied on by the learned Addl. G.A. do

not relate to the fact of the case and they are dealing with in

regard to the cancellation of the caste certificate and the

procedure involved.

But in the present appeals in hand, on a fair reading of

the proceedings and order of the learned Single Judge, it is

categorically observed that in the manner in which the inquiry

has been conducted, all the requirements are being fulfilled

and it supports the case of the writ petitioner. This Court finds

that in the writ appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge

needs no interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands

dismissed and the judgment of the learned Single Bench

dated 22.03.2022 stands affirmed.

It is needless to observe that by virtue of dismissing

the writ appeal, the benefits which have been granted to the

writ petitioner would stand extended.

              JUDGE             CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)




  suhanjit