Uttarakhand High Court
Ghulaam Gouss vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2451 of 2024
Ghulaam Gouss ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:- Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Mr. Vikas Pande and Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for
private respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the Government Order dated 31.10.2023 as well
as the order dated 08.08.2024, whereby the caste certificate
given to the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent
no.2.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner belongs to Jhojha community of
muslim religion and is an OBC in the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner was issued a caste certificate of OBC on
10.05.2018 by the competent authority. Subsequently, on a
complaint made by private respondents, the said caste
certificate was cancelled vide order dated 08.08.2024 and
the matter was referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee and the said Committee hearing both the
petitioner as well as the private respondents passed the
impugned order dated 08.08.2024, whereby the caste
certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil & another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development & others; reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241
and submitted that before cancelling the caste certificate
issued to the petitioner, the procedure should have been
followed as prescribed in para 13.5 of the said judgment,
where it has been prescribed that the matter should have
been sent to the vigilance cell for inquiry into the matter.
But, in the case in hand, no such procedure has been
adopted, which resulted into wrong cancellation of the caste
certificate.
5. Para 13.5 of the Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is
quoted hereinbelow:-
"5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting
of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and
such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social
status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the candidate hails and
usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the
place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social
status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the
case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth
registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian
or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other
persons who have knowledge of the social status of the
candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together
with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular,
of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological
and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies
etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Maya
Devi @ Mayawati vs. State of Uttarakhand & others;
reported in 2024 0 Supreme (UK) 133 to further buttress
his arguments that even for the purpose of cancellation, the
same procedure should have been adopted by the
respondent/State.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid case laws, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
procedure as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
by the subsequent judgments, the State Government has
not followed the procedure, therefore, there is flaw in the
cancellation order, which needs to be interpreted by this
Court.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the OBC certificate was issued to the petitioner on
10.05.2018, which is valid only for a period of three years
and that period expired on 10.05.2021, therefore, the
petitioner may apply for a fresh certificate as per the
paragraph 13.2 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).
9. But, this submission of learned State Counsel
does not find favour to this Court, for the reason that, if the
caste certificate which has been issued to the petitioner is
cancelled and he is asked to get a fresh certificate, the
reasons for cancellation of the said certificate would loom
large upon the petitioner for subsequent grant of the caste
certificate.
9. Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit
within a period of six weeks.
10. Thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to the
petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
11. List on 18.12.2024.
12. Till the next date of listing, as an interim
measure, it is directed that the effect and operation of the
order dated 08.08.2024 shall remain stayed.
13. Interim relief application (IA No.1/2024) stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
27.09.2024
AK
