Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 175 (UTT)

SIKHA DEVI @ SHIKHA PAWAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-04-23

B.S.VERMA

body2012
JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.] 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), whereby Up Ziladhikari Haridwar has cancelled the Caste Certificate of Banjara caste, which was issued on 13.1.2011 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that she belongs to Swarn Rajput. 3. According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner was a member of Banjara backward class and the stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the mother of the petitioner belongs to Swarn Rajput and the father of the petitioner namely Munshi Ram was also Swarn Rajput. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and that the same has been passed by the Up Ziladhikari Haridwar, who had no authority to cancel the caste certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that only Tehsildar is the competent Officer to pass the impugned order under Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 or in view of the Apex Court verdict in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in [(1994) 6, Supreme Court Cases, 241] the matter can be dealt with by the Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2007 (M/S), Prakash Beer and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (leading WPMS No. 1699 of 2007), decided on 25.9.2007. 5. Since there is a dispute and the matter requires scrutiny whether the petitioner belongs to general caste or a backward class, therefore, the appropriate Forum is the Scrutiny Committee to deal with such matter, as has been formed by the State Government in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 6. Accordingly, the matter is relegated to the scrutiny committee for taking decision in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the matter is relegated to the scrutiny committee for taking decision in the matter. The petitioner is directed to make an application to the District Magistrate Haridwar along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one week from today and thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee shall take a decision after hearing the petitioner and after making a detailed inquiry, pass appropriate order, expeditiously as far as possible. Till the decision is taken in the matter by the Scrutiny Committee, the impugned order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) shall be kept in abeyance. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of.