Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1152 (ALL)

Galendra Singh v. State of U. P. and others

2011-05-03

PRADEEP KANT, VEDPAL

body2011
Vedpal, J.;— Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of finally. 3. The petitioner, who admittedly, belongs to the caste 'Kamboj' was issued caste certificate under Other Backward Caste categories on 3.7.2006. On 30.7.2007 caste certificate has been cancelled that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order in the present writ petition. 4. Affidavits have been exchanged. 5. There is no dispute amongst the parties that grand- father of the petitioner shifted permanently to district Sitapur in the State of Uttar Pradesh some times in the year 1962. He has purchased agricultural land in July, 1972 and established at Sitapur. The petitioner was born at village Teja Singh Purwa, Post Ram Kot Tehsil and district Sitapur on 1.10.1989. He passed High School and Intermediate examinations from district Sitapur in 2004 and 2006 respectively. He since was ordinarily residing in district Sitapur, therefore, was issued caste certificate on 3rd July, 2006. 6. The caste certificate aforesaid has been cancelled on apparent misunderstanding of the clarification issued by the State Government on 29.4.2000. The impugned order dated 30.7.2007 mentions the aforesaid G.O. and says that the applicants claim themselves to be the members of Kamboj caste of Punjab State but it is not known that in which category the said caste was placed at Punjab, therefore, till State Government issues some directions in this regard, no certificate shall be issued to the persons belonging to Kamboj caste. After making the aforesaid recitals the caste certificate issued in favour of various persons five in number including the petitioner has been cancelled. Thus, it is obvious that cancellation order has been passed without application of mind and merely because the information asked for from the Punjab Government was not available and direction was issued that in future no caste certificate should be issued but the present caste certificate has been cancelled for no rhyme and reason and that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. 7. 7. Apart from this in the counter affidavit the State relies upon the averments made in the letter dated 20.4.2008 which reiterates the aforesaid point of view of the State Government that still it is not known that in which category the caste Kamboj has been placed in Punjab State and, therefore, such directions were issued by the State Government to the District Magistrate. In response to the said letter the State Government on 26th November, 2000 informed the District Magistrate that caste certificate can be issued only to the persons who are the original residents of the State and the present applicant is the original resident of State of Punjab and, therefore, the caste certificate be issued to only to those O.B Cs. who are original residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The directions aforesaid issued in fact read as under : @ Hindi @ 8. In the G.O. Letter dated 4th October, 2000 written by the State Government to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur the State Government has clarified that caste certificate can be issued in favour of a person, if he or his family was ordinarily residing in any village, Tehsil, city or district of Uttar Pradesh. It further says that word " ordinarily" (lkekU;r;k) used in the aforesaid Government Order dated 22.10.2008 has not been defined but meaning which has been given to the said term under the Representations of Peoples Act under Section 20 has to be taken into account. 9. The argument of the State that the caste certificate can not be issued to the petitioner, as his caste had not originated in district Sitapur, is neither here nor there. It is not the case of origination of the caste which is the deciding factor for issuing caste certificate but the place where the person concerned belongs to the place where the applicant ordinarily resides are the relevant considerations. Section 20 of the Peoples of the Representation of Peoples Act can be referred to for finding the meaning of the 'ordinarily resident.' 10. The petitioner was born at Sitapur. He took his studies at Sitapur. He resides at Sitapur. He can very safely be said to be the original resident of district Sitapur. 11. He is also ordinarily residing in district Sitapur in terms of Section 20 of the Representation of Peoples Act. The petitioner was born at Sitapur. He took his studies at Sitapur. He resides at Sitapur. He can very safely be said to be the original resident of district Sitapur. 11. He is also ordinarily residing in district Sitapur in terms of Section 20 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Merely because his grand father migrated from Punjab , it would not mean that the petitioner is not the original resident of district Sitapur. Place of birth and subsequent upbringing and study in district are some factors which determine the place of original residence of the applicant. 12. The clarification and direction issued by the State Government did not say anywhere that if a person who is original resident of district Sitapur or may be that he may be ordinarily residing at that place , and if the caste to which he belongs, also has been classified as a caste of reserve category in the State of Uttar Pradesh , then caste certificate cannot be issued to such a person merely because his forefathers have migrated from another State to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 13. For the reasons aforesaid the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30.7.2007, passed by Tehsildar, Sitapur district Sitapur, contained in annexure no. 4 is set aside and the caste certificate already issued to the petition shall remain to be operative, unless cancelled for any other valid reason. _