Ram Nakshatra Suryavanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 115 of 2020 Ram Nakshatra Suryavanshi S/o Late Ram Sewak Suryavanshi Aged About 59 Years Caste - Chamar, R/o 18-A, Street No. 2, Sector - 1, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13/01/2020

1. The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the application for grant of permanent caste certificate.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had moved an application for grant of said certificate but same has till date not been finalized. He further submits that he has produced all relevant records that he has before the respondent No.2, yet respondent No.2 has till date not finalized the same.

3. State of Chhattisgarh in the recent past has framed a law in this regard i.e. Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short "The Act of 2013"). The said Act

specifically provides for the manner and procedure by which a person has to apply and procedure to be adopted by the concerned authority for grant of said certificate. There are certain conditions also laid down in the said Act which needs to be complied with by either side. The provision also provides for submission of inability certificate so far as the records are concerned and subject to the petitioner providing the inability certificate the Committee has to conduct an enquiry on its own with the available records and materials and thereafter pass an appropriate order.

4. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and law that has been laid down by the State by the aforesaid Act of 2013, this Court is of the opinion that writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision on the application either accepting his application or rejecting the same in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit