Tripura High Court
For vs For on 6 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A.175 of 2021
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
Mr. S. Saha, Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
06.12.2022
Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The genesis of the case is that the two writ petitions being
WP(C)No.55/2016 and WP(C)No.702/2017 are consolidated and heard by the
Hon'ble High Court by a common judgment inasmuch as the controversy raised
in this writ appeal are common in nature. The case of the appellant is that the
writ petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing and cancelling the order
dated 07.01.2016 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in Case
No.5(A)/ENQ/SLSC/SC/15 cancelling the SC certificate bearing
No.494/SDO/KLS/GL/77 dated 01.02.1978 issued in favour of the petitioner by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kailashahar, North Tripura.
3. The writ petitioner has submitted that the competent authority
had cancelled his respective SC Certificate. This Court vide order 27.02.2020
had passed an order directing the petitioners to submit the SC Certificate
relating to their family members. The petitioners have filed a supplementary
affidavit stating that the SC Certificate issued in favour of his father namely
Bhabani Ranjan Biswas still stands good and it has been cancelled at any point
of time.
4. Further, the SC Certificate issued by the competent authority in
favour of Smt. Prabha Rani Biswas, Rina Biswas, Pradip Biswas, Dipak Biswas,
Abhirup Biswas, had not been cancelled. It is to be mentioned here that they
all are brothers and sisters of the present two petitioners. Unexpectedly, the
certificate indicating their community, issued by the competent authority after
due inquiry and in furtherance thereof, when the SC Certificate was issued in
favour of their father namely Bhabani Ranjan Biswas has not been cancelled,
but the SC Certificate issued in favour of the present petitioners would be liable
to be cancelled.
5. The respondents by filing their reply has reiterated their stand as
espoused in the reply. In the ROR book No.4 of the year 1962, the petitioners
father namely Bhabani Ranjan Biswas had been recorded as Sadharan
(General). Only in the year 1981, the said ROR register was corrected and the
caste status of said Biswas was changed from General to SC. The petitioners
Caste Certificate was issued on 01.02.1978 i.e. much prior to correction of his
father's caste status in the year 1981. The petitioner could not explain or
produce any documents to establish the basis on which his SC Certificate was
issued as his father was still recorded as Sadharan (General) in ROR.
6. In the written statement the petitioner has submitted that his
father came to India from Bangladesh in the year 1959. But surprisingly, for
more than 20 years Babhani Ranjan Biswas belong to General Category and
corrected his caste status in the year 1981 i.e. after the issuance of his sons SC
Certificate in the year 1978. It has been also stated that his SC Certificate was
issued in the year 1981 i.e. after 2 years from the issuance of the SC Certificate
to his son Sew Prasad Biswas. The writ petitioner Sew Prasad Biswas could not
produce any document to show the basis of his SC Certificate. The petitioner
failed to discharge his onus under Section 11 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991. After hearing both sides, the
Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal
has been filed.
7. Having heard both sides and after scrutinized the records this we
are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is not
affirmative in nature but it is only in the form of remanding the matter giving
an opportunity to the respondents, the appellants herein to reexamine the
matter and after giving opportunity to all sides and including the evidences
which are constructive for the respondent appellants herein to be reexamine.
8. In the light of the same, no opinion can be drawn either in favour
of the appellants nor in favour of the respondent at this juncture. Further, this
court feels that there no material placed on record to say that the appellants
belongs to Kayastha Community or the appellants belongs to Namasudra
Community either to accept or to reject the case of the appellant. In the
absence of the same, this court is not inclined to give any express opinion with
regard to the status of the appellants.
Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the
learned single Judge and accordingly the same is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Sabyasachi B
