Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 34 (TRI)

Bidyut Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2013-11-25

S.C.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Common question of law is involved in all the 17 (seventeen) writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noted above, and on the prayer of learned counsel of both side, all the writ petitions were taken up together and were heard analogously and this common judgment shall govern all the cases. Out of the aforementioned writ petitions, WP(C) No. 397 of 2006 was heard on 30.09.2013, WP(C) No. 106 of 2006 and 107 of 2006 were heard on 01.10.2013 and on similar prayer of learned counsel of both side, those writ petitions were also taken up along with the rest 14 writ petitions which were heard on 26.09.2013, are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for all the writ petitioners except WP(C) No. 106/06 and 107/06 and in those two cases learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta has been heard for the petitioners. Also heard learned G.A., Mr. T. Datta Majumder for the State respondents in all the writ petitions and learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Chowdhury for the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in WP(C) No. 404 of 2006 and learned counsel, Mr. S. Datta for the respondent No. 8 in WP(C) No. 82 of 2006. 3. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, contended that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe 'Tripuri' community of the State of Tripura and the competent authority in due course after proper inquiry, as per rules, issued the Caste Certificates in favour of the petitioners. Their forefathers belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and they got the document to show that their fore-fathers were having with Scheduled Tribe status since before independence. 4. The petitioners contended that the respondent Member Secretary of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, issued Show Cause Notice alleging that the petitioners and their forefathers belonged to 'Laskar' community and that their forefathers does not belong to the 'Tripuri' tribal community of the State of Tripura and that they were migrated from a place named 'Mogra', now Bangladesh, to the State of Tripura and settled in the princely State of Tripura. They were termed as 'Deshi Tripuri' belonged to 'Laskar' community and were not recognized as original tribe of the State. They were termed as 'Deshi Tripuri' belonged to 'Laskar' community and were not recognized as original tribe of the State. Along with the Show Cause Notice in almost all cases, the petitioners were served with a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell of the Govt. of Tripura and the petitioners submitted show cause reply in writing demanding copies of the materials, on the basis of which the inquiry report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell. In some of the cases the Vigilance Cell submitted their report on the basis of some statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry but in some cases no such statement of witnesses was recorded by the Vigilance Cell. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, SLSC), based on the reports, submitted by the Vigilance Cell, cancelled the Caste (ST) Certificates of the petitioners without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. The petitioners contended that along with the show cause reply, they submitted documents and also prayed for affording scope to cross examine the witness on the basis of the statement of whom the Vigilance Cell submitted report and also prayed for affording opportunity to give evidence. But the SLSC without affording any opportunity, violating all norms and principles of natural justice, cancelled the Caste Certificate of the particular petitioner and by a separate forwarding letter communicated the cancellation order, passed by SLSC, to the petitioners. Brief fact of the case of each of the petitioners may be summarised as follows:- (i) In WP(C) 74 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 26.06.1974 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-M to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition). (ii) In WP(C) 75 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 29.03.1976 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice of the Member Secretary by the SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). (ii) In WP(C) 75 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 29.03.1976 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice of the Member Secretary by the SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 18.01.2005 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-N to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-O to the writ petition). (iii) In WP(C) 78 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 28.08.1972 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-E to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-H to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-J to the writ petition). (iv) In WP(C) 80 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 07.02.1987 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice of the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-M to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition). (v) In WP(C) 81 of 2006 caste certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 14.10.2003 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 22.06.2005 (Annexure-E to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-H to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-I to the writ petition). (vi) In WP(C) 82 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 20.01.1975 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). (vi) In WP(C) 82 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 20.01.1975 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-M to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition). (vii) In WP(C) 94 of 2006 caste certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 29.03.1976 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-M to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition). (viii) In WP(C) 95 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 29.03.1976 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 13.03.2005 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 12.04.2005 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.07.2005 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 09.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-E to the writ petition). (ix) In WP(C) 289 of 2006 caste certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 11.04.1969 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). In the year 1997 the petitioner joined in the Public Works Department (PWD) as a Junior Engineer. The Chief Engineer (PWD) by a letter dated 12.02.2001 asked the petitioner to submit his ST Certificate for verification but it was kept retained by the authority and even after repeated representation not returned to the petitioner. In the year 1997 the petitioner joined in the Public Works Department (PWD) as a Junior Engineer. The Chief Engineer (PWD) by a letter dated 12.02.2001 asked the petitioner to submit his ST Certificate for verification but it was kept retained by the authority and even after repeated representation not returned to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner's brother Brikramjit Debbarma (Petitioner of WP(C) 397 of 2006) was issued a Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC on the basis of an inquiry report of the Vigilance Cell and it was held that the ST Certificate in the name of the petitioner's brother Rajendra Debbarma was surrendered and hence, SDM, Kailashahar by Order dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure-T to the writ petition) cancelled the ST Certificate issued in the name of the petitioner. It is alleged that no Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner before cancellation of his ST Certificate. (x) In WP(C) 402 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 01.04.1967 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 22.06.2005 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 20.07.2005 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 12.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-F to the writ petition). It is contended by the petitioner that she never declared or given statement that she does not belong to ST community. (xi) In WP(C) 404 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 19.01.1995 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 16.02.2006 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 11.03.2006 (Annexure-E to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 26.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-H to the writ petition). (xii) In WP(C) 409 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 07.02.1987 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 18.12.2004 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). (xii) In WP(C) 409 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 07.02.1987 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 18.12.2004 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 13.05.2006 (Annexure-H to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 27.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-L to the writ petition). (xiii) In WP(C) 428 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 31.01.1981 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.03.2005 (Annexure-K to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 13.03.2006 (Annexure-L to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure-P to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 26.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-O to the writ petition). (xiv) In WP(C) 465 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 16.01.1981 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 26.08.2006 (Annexure-N to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 15.09.2006 (Annexure-O to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-P to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 23.10.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition). (xv) In WP(C) 397 of 2006 caste certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 20.02.1986 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 29.04.2006 (Annexure-H to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 17.05.2006 (Annexure-J to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Case Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 27.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-M to the writ petition). (xvi) In WP(C) 106 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 07.05.1975 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). (xvi) In WP(C) 106 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 07.05.1975 (Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 18.12.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 25.07.2005 (Annexure-I to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-J to the writ petition). (xvii) In WP(C) 107 of 2006 Caste Certificate in the name of the petitioner was issued on 09.10.1987 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Show Cause Notice by the Member Secretary of SLSC was issued on 17.12.2004 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted Show Cause reply on 31.12.2004 (Annexure-F to the writ petition) and again on 11.03.2005 (Annexure H to the writ petition). SLSC cancelled the case certificate of the petitioner by Order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-K to the writ petition) and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-K to the writ petition). 5. All the petitioners contended that they submitted documents along with their Show Cause reply but those documents were not considered and that SLSC mechanically passed the Order cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners and hence the particular order cancelling the Caste Certificates of each of the petitioners passed by the SLSC and communicated by the Member Secretary of the SLSC are all liable to be set aside and quashed. In WP(C) 289 of 2006 the petitioner contended that his Caste Certificate has been cancelled by SDM without affording him any opportunity to present his case and therefore prayed for setting aside and quashing the order. 6. By filing re-joinder in WP(C) 78 of 2006, the petitioners contended that all the writ petitioners belonged to same race and they are lineal descendants of the same forefathers of the same clan having blood relations. They contended that one Santanu Debbarma, S/o. Nimai Debbarma also belonged to the same clan and the SLSC by Order dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure-1 of the rejoinder affidavit) held that the said Santanu Debbarma belonged to 'Tripuri' community and a tribe of the State. They contended that one Santanu Debbarma, S/o. Nimai Debbarma also belonged to the same clan and the SLSC by Order dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure-1 of the rejoinder affidavit) held that the said Santanu Debbarma belonged to 'Tripuri' community and a tribe of the State. While the SLSC held Santanu Debbarma of same clan as a tribe belonged to 'Tripuri' community, all the petitioners being the members of the same clan also ought to be held as the members of the 'Tripuri' tribe community of the State. The SLSC wrongly cancelled the Caste Certificates of the petitioners and the decision of the SLSC is discriminatory, arbitrary and therefore, liable to be interfered and set aside. 7. The State-respondents submitted counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that all the petitioners belonged to 'Laskar' community and their forefathers were residents of a place named 'Mogra', now in Bangladesh and they migrated in the princely State of Tripura long back and after entering into the State they started using their surname as 'Debbarma'. They never belonged to any tribal community of the State. The petitioners could not show any document in support of their claim that their forefathers originally belonged to 'Tripuri' tribal community. Though there is no document that their forefathers migrated from Mogra, now in Bangladesh, the Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and recorded statements of numerous witnesses who are relatives of the petitioners and they contended that the petitioners and their forefathers belonged to 'Laskar' community migrated from Mogra and they do not belong to 'Tripuri' community tribe of the State of Tripura. The SLSC considered the fact that the petitioners could not place on record the origin of their forefathers and rightly cancelled the Caste Certificates issued in the name of the petitioners issued on different dates. There is no illegality or impropriety in the cancellation order passed by the SLSC and communication letters by the Member Secretary of the SLSC. 8. It is an undisputed rather admitted fact that all the writ petitioners belonged to same clan. They are the lineal descendants of same forefathers. It is also not disputed that Show Cause Notice issued by the Member Secretary of the SLSC in all the cases are identical and same. For reference Show Cause Notice (Annexure-B to the Writ Petition (C) 74 of 2006) is reproduced here which reads thus:- "GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF WELFARE FOR SCH. It is also not disputed that Show Cause Notice issued by the Member Secretary of the SLSC in all the cases are identical and same. For reference Show Cause Notice (Annexure-B to the Writ Petition (C) 74 of 2006) is reproduced here which reads thus:- "GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF WELFARE FOR SCH. TRIBES No. 15645/F. 4(73)/TW/R. Cell/2004 Agartala, Dated 17/12/2004 Show Cause Notice Whereas a report has been received on the ground that Sri Bidyut Deb Banna, S/o.:-Lt. Sri Gurgadas Debbarma of Krishnanagar, Thakurpally Road, Agartala, obtained ST certificate bearing No. 782/DM/GL/W/74 dated, 26-6-74 from the Office of the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala by misrepresentation of fact claiming to be member of Tripuri community although he actually belong to Laskar Community which is not mentioned in the Presidential orders listing the STs Tripura. Whereas as per judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4545 of 1995 his case was sent to S.P. of Vigilance Tripura for verification in the matter and verification report from Vigilance Organisation reveals that Sri Bidyut Deb Barma belongs to 'Laskar' community and not Tripuri Community. A copy of report received from Vigilance organization is enclosed. Now the undersigned calls upon Sri Bidyut Deb Barma to submit representation or reply within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this Notice as to why his ST certificate should not be cancelled on the ground of suppression of fact. In case he fails to make any representation against this show cause Notice within the time specified herein above, the matter will be decided exparte. Member Secretary State Level Scrutiny Committee (Director Tribal Welfare) To Sri Bidyut Deb Barma, S/o.:-Lt. Durgadas Debbarma of Krishnanagar, Thakurpally Road, Agartala, West Tripura." 9. The cancellation orders of the Caste Certificates issued by the SLSC in all the cases are also same and identical. For reference order dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the Writ Petition (C) 74 of 2006) is quoted herein which reads thus:- "STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT VIDE GA(AR) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION NO. F. 11(66) GA(AR)/2001 Dated 15.04.2004 In the matter of Sri Bidyut Deb Barma, S/o. Lt. Durgadas DebBarma of T.P. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala working under State Bank of India Agartala Branch. ORDER Date 07.11.2005 The State Level Scrutiny Committee has examined the caste status of Sri Bidyut Deb Barma S/o. Lt. F. 11(66) GA(AR)/2001 Dated 15.04.2004 In the matter of Sri Bidyut Deb Barma, S/o. Lt. Durgadas DebBarma of T.P. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala working under State Bank of India Agartala Branch. ORDER Date 07.11.2005 The State Level Scrutiny Committee has examined the caste status of Sri Bidyut Deb Barma S/o. Lt. Durgadas Deb Barma of T.P. Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala, West Tripura and also examined the reply of Show cause Notice dated 17.12.2004 submitted by Bidyut Deb Barama to Director, Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura, Gorkhabasti, Agartala. The Committee has gone through the Vigilance enquiry report about the caste status of Sri. Deb Barma. On careful consideration of all records the Committee has come to the conclusion that Sri Bidyut DebBarma belongs to Laskar Community. The ST certificate bearing No. 782/DM/GL/W/74 dated 26.6.74 held by Sri Bidyut Deb Barma is no longer valid after the issue of Notification No. 38296-396/F. 6-4(C-D)/TW/89 dated 31.3.90 by the Tribal Welfare Department. So the said Scheduled Tribes Certificate is hereby cancelled and Sri Deb Barma is directed to return the original ST certificate to the Director Tribal Welfare, Government of Tripura, Gorkhabasti Agartala immediately. A copy of this order be supplied to Sri Bidyut Deb Barma. 10. A bare reading of the cancellation order of the Caste Certificates, passed by the SLSC, makes it abundantly clear that the contention of the petitioners in respect of their claim as a Scheduled Tribe ('Tripuri' community) claimed by them in the respective Show Cause reply and documents filed by them were not considered by the SLSC at the time of passing the impugned orders. It is also evident from a bare reading of the Show Cause Notice that the genuinity of the Caste Certificates of the respective petitioners were suspected on the ground that the petitioners do not belong to 'Tripuri' tribe community of the State and that they belonged to 'Laskar' community. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman and Mr. P. Datta appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that SLSC violated the basic principles of natural justice and mechanically taking into consideration some report of vigilance Cell cancelled Caste Certificates of the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of being heard. The petitioners in their Show Cause reply specifically contended that they should be given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on the basis of the statement of whom the Vigilance Cell submitted the report. The petitioners in their Show Cause reply specifically contended that they should be given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on the basis of the statement of whom the Vigilance Cell submitted the report. They also claimed to give them opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case but no such opportunity was afforded and therefore the principles of natural justice has been given goodbye by SLSC and on that ground alone the impugned orders cancelling the Caste Certificates are liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. It is further contended by learned counsel of the petitioners that the Caste Certificates in the name of the petitioners were issued mostly in the decade of 1970s and a few in the decade of 1960s and some in the decade of 1980s. According to law, submitted learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman, the verification matter of the Caste Certificates should be taken up at the earliest opportunity and while the Caste Certificates were issued following the proper procedure, observing all formalities, SLSC had no authority to take up verification of such Caste Certificates issued long ago and cancelled the same whimsically on the basis of a vague report of Vigilance Cell. It is also contended by learned counsel of the petitioners that SLSC taken a double standard role. Santanu Debbarma also belonged to the same clan of the petitioners having the same forefathers and closely related to each other and the relationship has been clearly stated in the re-joinder affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 78 of 2006 which has not been disputed and while the Caste Certificates issued in the name of Santanu Debbarma was found to be genuine, SLSC should not have taken a decision contending that the Caste Certificates of the petitioners were not genuine and that they do not belong to 'Tripuri' community since the Caste Certificates were issued long ago, submitted learned counsel, and since no opportunity was afforded of being heard, the impugned cancellation orders passed by SLSC cannot stand and are liable to be set aside and quashed. 13. In support of their argument, learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman referred the following case laws:- (i) (1994) 6 SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. 13. In support of their argument, learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman referred the following case laws:- (i) (1994) 6 SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.); (ii) (1995) 4 SCC 32 (Director of Tribal) Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & Anr.); (iii) (2012) 1 SCC 333 (Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors.); (iv) AIR 2013 SC 58 (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.); (v) AIR 2013 SC 1513 (Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Anr.); (vi) (2010) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 774 (Subodh Debbarma v. State of Tripura & Ors.); (vii) (2012) 1 SCC 549 (Dattu S/o. Namdev Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Anr); (viii) (2012) 1 SCC 113 (Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.) 14. Learned G.A., Mr. Datta Majumder with all his fairness submitted that Show Cause Notices were issued to the writ petitioners when the verification of their respective Caste Certificates were taken by the SLSC. But it is true that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on the basis of the statement of whom the Vigilance Cell submitted the report proposing that the petitioners belonged to 'Laskar' community and that they do not belong to 'Tripuri' Tribe community. It is also admitted by learned G.A. that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to adduce evidence in support of their contention. However, it is submitted by learned G.A. that in response to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioners submitted written Show Cause reply annexing copies of documents and those documents taken into consideration by the SLSC though it has not been reflected in the cancellation orders. According to learned G.A., the burden lies on the petitioners to prove that they belonged to tribal community. The petitioners, in their Show Cause reply, submitted learned G.A., though contended that they belonged to 'Tripuri' Tribe community of the State, they simply submitted some documents showing their fore-fathers using surname 'Debbarma' which does not establish the Tribe status of the predecessors of the petitioners. The petitioners, in their Show Cause reply, submitted learned G.A., though contended that they belonged to 'Tripuri' Tribe community of the State, they simply submitted some documents showing their fore-fathers using surname 'Debbarma' which does not establish the Tribe status of the predecessors of the petitioners. It is fairly contended by learned G A. that if this Court consider that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners and that the principles of natural justice was not followed by SLSC, the case of the petitioners may be remanded back to SLSC for a fair decision after affording such opportunity. 15. In support of his contention, learned G.A. referred the following case laws:- (i) (1997) 3 SCC 542 (State of T.N. & Ors. v. Agurusamy); (ii) (2011) 10 SCC 357 (Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi & Ors); (iii) (2012) 1 SCC 113 (Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.) 16. Learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Chowdhury and Mr. S. Datta submitted that their clients were unnecessarily arrayed in the writ petitions and that they have nothing to submit in support or against the contention of the writ petitioners. 17. It is well settled by now that principles of natural justice has to be respected by quasi judicial or administrative authorities .while taking action if they adversely affect the interest of a person or that the action involves criminal or civil consequences. In a case of an administrative action rules of natural justice is to be strictly followed which substantially contains (i) charges to be clearly stated; (ii) notice to be issued containing charges; (iii) witnesses to be examined in presence of the affected party/delinquent (iv) previously recorded statements to be supplied to the affected party/delinquent (v) opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statement relied by the administrative or quasi judicial authority (vi) opportunity to adduce defence evidence (vii) finding to be recorded on the basis of the evidence/materials on record. 18. Obviously the rules of natural justice includes cross examination of the witnesses relied by the administrative authority/quasi judicial authority, denial of which is a serious violation of principles of natural justice. Opportunity to lead evidence in defence is another salient feature of the principles of natural justice. 19. Needless to reiterate, "audi alteram partem" means no one should be a Judge of his own case and nobody should be condemned unheard. Opportunity to lead evidence in defence is another salient feature of the principles of natural justice. 19. Needless to reiterate, "audi alteram partem" means no one should be a Judge of his own case and nobody should be condemned unheard. Here giving an opportunity of being heard does not mean issuing Show Cause Notice and then to take action with or without taking into consideration the Show Cause reply. It means a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the allegation made against the person concerned affording all opportunities to adduce evidence in support of his defence. Reasonable opportunity means - (i) opportunity to adduce relevant evidence (ii) evidence to be taken in presence of the affected party, (iii) full opportunity to cross examine the witness; (iv) no admission of any material without affording opportunity to explain it. A statement recorded behind and back of the delinquent cannot be treated as a substantive evidence/material against the person concerned unless, the delinquent is given an opportunity to cross examine that person if the delinquent so desires. 20. Relying on the decision in Union of India v. T.R. Varma reported in AIR 1957 SC 882 the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 has held -- stating it broadly and without intending to be exhaustive it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing of relevant evidence of which he relies, that the evidence of the opponents should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross examination of the witness examined by other party, and that no material should be relied on against him without he is being given an opportunity of explaining them. It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the right to cross examine the witnesses who gave evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the inquiry officer by not giving to the officer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would be that inquiry had not been held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The law laid down by the Constitutional Bench has been followed and holds the field till now. 21. The law laid down by the Constitutional Bench has been followed and holds the field till now. 21. It is apparently clear in the given facts and circumstances of the cases at hand that the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses statement of whom was relied by the Vigilance Cell was not given to the petitioners. It is also abundantly clear that the petitioners were not given the opportunity to adduce evidence though they claimed so in the Show Cause reply submitted by them. 22. SLSC taken the issue of verification of the Caste status of the petitioners and entrusted Vigilance Cell to inquire into the Caste status of the respective petitioners and the Vigilance Cell submitted report with or without examination of the witnesses in all the writ cases except in the case No. WP(C) 289 of 2006. 23. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Maduri Patil (supra) has laid down the law regarding verification of Caste status. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 are relevant which reads as follows:- "13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue-Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 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. 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 proforma, 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. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Addl. Secretary as Chair-person who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post. 16. Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons. 17. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts." 24. In paragraph 13, the Apex Court streamlined the procedure for issuance of Social Caste Certificate, scrutiny thereof for approval or cancellation etc. and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laveti Giri (supra) in Paragraph 7 of the judgment. 25. In Laveti Giri (supra) in paragraph 6 of the judgment it has been held that burden of proof of social status is always on the person who profess it to seek constitutional socioeconomic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the Sate to disprove or otherwise. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the Apex Court held thus:- "8. While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable principles, it is high time that the Government of India should have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and corner the benefits reserved for the real tribals etc. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39." 26. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39." 26. In the case of Dayaram (supra), a larger Bench of the Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) reaffirmed the directions given by the Apex Court in Paragraph 13 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) except that of the later part of direction No. 13 in paragraph 13 regarding intra Court appeals against the decision of the Single Bench of the High Court. The Court held that the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. Whenever it is found that socio-economic rights of citizens are required to be enforced, but there was a vacuum on account of the absence of any law to protect and enforce such rights, the Supreme Court has invariably stepped in and evolved new mechanism to protect and enforce such rights, to do complete justice. This has been done by refashioning remedies beyond those traditionally available under writ jurisdiction by issuing appropriate directions or guidelines to protect the fundamental rights and make them meaningful. In exercise of the powers under Article 32 read with article 142 in our constitutional jurisprudence such exercise is essential to fill the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field. 27. In paragraph 36 of the judgment the Bench of the Apex Court held thus-- "Having regard to the scheme for verification formulated by this Court in Madhuri Patil, the Scrutiny Committees carry out verification of caste certificates issued without prior enquiry, as for example the caste certificates issued by Tehsildars or other officers of the departments of Revenue/Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare, without any enquiry or on the basis of self-affidavits about caste. If there were to be a legislation governing or regulating grant of caste certificates, and if caste certificates are issued after due and proper inquiry, such caste certificates will not call for verification by the Scrutiny Committees. Madhuri Patil provides for verification only to avoid false and bogus claims. The said scheme and the directions therein have been satisfactorily functioning for the last one-and-a-half decades. Madhuri Patil provides for verification only to avoid false and bogus claims. The said scheme and the directions therein have been satisfactorily functioning for the last one-and-a-half decades. If there are any shortcomings, the Government can always come up with an appropriate legislation to substitute the said scheme. We see no reason why the procedure laid down in Madhuri Patil should not continue in the absence of any legislation governing the matter." 28. The State legislature made the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 as amended time to time, prescribing there-under the law relating to cancellation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Certificates. Rule 6 reads as follows:- [6. Cancellation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate An authority who issued a Scheduled Caste Certificate or Scheduled Tribe certificate to any one may, at a subsequent stage cancel it, if after an enquiry and after giving the party concerned an opportunity of being heard, it finds that the person to whom the Community Certificate was issued does not actually belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Provided that in cancelling a Scheduled Caste Certificate, the issuing authority shall obtain the views of the concerned Block Level or Nagar Panchayat Level or Municipal Level Scheduled Castes Welfare Sub-Committee and in cancelling a Scheduled Tribe certificate, the issuing authority shall obtain the views of the Sub-Divisional Level Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee, if any, constituted by the Government, as to whether the certificate holder belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the views so given by the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee shall form a part of the order cancelling the certificate in question. Provided further that the Scrutiny Committee shall also be competent to cancel a community certificate issued by a competent authority. For arriving at a decision whether the community certificate in question shall be cancelled or not, the Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 7A hereinafter along with reports/records obtained from the competent authority.] 29. Rule 7A has been incorporated following the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Rule 7A reads as follows:- "[7A Constitution. Powers and Functions of the Scrutiny Committee. Rule 7A has been incorporated following the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Rule 7A reads as follows:- "[7A Constitution. Powers and Functions of the Scrutiny Committee. (1) At the State Level there shall be two Scrutiny Committees as follows- (a) For verification of community status of Scheduled Caste Certificate holders, the Scrutiny Committee shall consist of:- (i) The Secretary-in-charge of Department for Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes and Minorities - Chairman. (ii) The Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes - Member-Secretary (iii) Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Law Department] - Member [(iv) Additional Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes & Other Backward Classes - Member (b) For verification of community status of Scheduled Tribe certificate holders, the Scrutiny Committee shall consist of:- (i) The Secretary-in-charge of the Tribal Welfare Department - Chairman (ii) The Director for Welfare of Scheduled Tribes - Member-Secretary (iii) The Director, Tribal Research Institute - Member (iv) Joint Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Law Department] - Member [(2) Director of Vigilance shall constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors to investigate into the community status and claims as may be required. (3) The Investigating Officer 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. He should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the certificate holder 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 certificate holder in relation to their caste etc. He should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the certificate holder 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 certificate holder in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the community status of the certificate holder and submit a report to the Director of Vigilance who will verify the correctness of the report and transmit it to the Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, 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. (4) The Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned, on receipt of the report from the Director of Vigilance if finds the claim for community status is not genuine or doubtful or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Member-Secretary concerned shall issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the community certificate holder by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the institution or office concerned in which the certificate holder is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case, on request, not more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case, the certificate holder seeks an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Member-Secretary on receipt of such representation or reply shall convene the meeting of the committee and the Chairperson of the Committee shall give a reasonable opportunity to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to the parent or guardian to adduce all evidences in support of his claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may also be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may also be given to him or it. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may also be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may also be given to him or it. After giving such opportunity in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the certificate holder or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. Provided that in case a certificate holder engages a legal practitioner to represent his case before the Scrutiny Committee, the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes or the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Tribes as the case may be, may engage a lawyer. Provided further that before passing a final order, the Committee shall also take into consideration the local enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and opinion of the Sub-Committee concerned. (5) In case the report is in favour of the certificate holder and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in sub-rule (4) shall be followed. (6) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, the Committee shall pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. The Committee shall communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to his parent or guardian. The Committee shall communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the certificate holder and in case the certificate holder is a minor to his parent or guardian. (7) In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an office or post is getting expired, the certificate holder be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the community status certificate already issued, on an affidavit duly sworn by the parent or guardian or certificate holder before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. (8) In case, the certificate obtained or community status claimed is found to be false, the parent or guardian or certificate holder as the case may be, shall be prosecuted for making the false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it shall be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, a disqualification for elective posts. (9) As soon as the findings is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false and the certificate is cancelled and confiscated, it shall be communicated to the head of the Educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The head of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, shall cancel the admission or appointment as the case may be without any further notice to the certificate holder and debar him from further study or continue in office in a post]" 30. A careful consideration of the cases at hand makes it crystal clear that sub Rules (3) & (4) of Rule 7(A) has not been followed by the SLSC while passing the impugned order cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners. It is also clear that SDM, Kailashahar also did not follow the procedure while cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner of WP(C) 289 of 2006. It is also clear that SDM, Kailashahar also did not follow the procedure while cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner of WP(C) 289 of 2006. It is the settled proposition of law that administrative authority or quasi judicial authority are not bound by the rule of evidence prescribed under the Evidence Act and the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code but they are to follow the principles of natural justice and the procedure which has been prescribed under the particular special law which they require to follow. In the present cases neither the Vigilance Cell submitted report following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7A nor the SLSC followed the said Rules while cancelling the Caste Certificates of the petitioners. 31. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman argued that Caste Certificates of the petitioners were issued long ago by the competent authority following the procedure prescribed by law. The respondents nowhere contended that the Caste Certificates were issued by any incompetent authority or that those were issued without proper inquiry. Under such circumstances, it was not open to the SLSC to take up verification of the Caste Certificates alleging that the petitioners belonged to 'Laskar' community and that they do not belong to 'Tripuri' Tribal community. Learned counsel heavily relied on paragraph 36 of Dayaram (supra) and has submitted that only in respect of the false certificate it is open to the SLSC to take up the verification. 32. The argument of learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman in my opinion, is not acceptable since it is not strictly laid down by the Apex Court that Certificate issued long ago, genuinity of it cannot be verified. There is no law of limitation prescribed under the statute preventing the appropriate authority in taking up verification of the Caste status of a person at any time rather it is clearly spelt out that the Caste status may be verified at different stage at the time of appointment in public service or promotion etc. SLSC taken up the issues of verification when it was raised that the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community of the State and before an inquiry is conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law, SLSC cannot arrive at a conclusion that the Caste Certificates even if issued by a competent authority was correct or not. SLSC taken up the issues of verification when it was raised that the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community of the State and before an inquiry is conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law, SLSC cannot arrive at a conclusion that the Caste Certificates even if issued by a competent authority was correct or not. The law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is abundantly clear that the Scrutiny Committee can take up the issue of verification regarding genuinity/authenticity of the Caste Certificates. It cannot be termed as a gospel truth that once a Caste Certificate is issued by competent authority, it must be held as genuine and its genuinity cannot be questioned at any later stage. The decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Dattu (supra) is completely on a different context and in my considered opinion, there is no law of limitation laid down by the Apex Court in that reported case to hold that after a particular period SLSC cannot take over verification of a Caste Certificate. 33. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan (supra) the Apex Court followed the law laid down in Dayaram (supra) relying on numerous earlier decisions of the Apex Court and has held that--not only should the opportunity of cross examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross examination, so as to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. In the absence of such opportunity, it cannot be held that the matter has been decided in accordance with law, as cross examination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. In paragraph 39 of the judgment the Court has observed thus:- "39. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment in Daya Ram (supra), that the purpose of issuing directions in Km. Madhuri Patil (supra), was only to examine those cases, where caste certificates had been issued without conducting any prior enquiry, on the basis of self-affidavits regarding one's caste alone, and that the said directions were not at all applicable, where a legislation governing or regulating the grant of caste certificates exists, and where caste certificates are issued after due and proper enquiry. Caste certificates issued by holding proper enquiry, in accordance with duly prescribed procedure, would not require any further verification by the scrutiny committee." 34. Caste certificates issued by holding proper enquiry, in accordance with duly prescribed procedure, would not require any further verification by the scrutiny committee." 34. In the present cases at hand, the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity by the SLSC to prove genuinity of their Caste Certificates. Burden lies on the petitioners to prove the genuinity of the same if it is questioned at any stage. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan (supra) the Apex Court made it clear that if the certificate is issued by a competent authority following the procedure prescribed, it does not require further verification by the Scrutiny Committee. According to the Sate respondents the forefathers of the petitioners do not belong to the Tribal community of the State and that they belonged to 'Laskar' community migrated from 'Mogra' now in Bangladesh. The SLSC while taken up the issue of verification of genuinity of the Caste Certificates was supposed to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioners to prove their claim that they belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community of Tripura. Since that opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners according to the procedure prescribed by law, the question that the certificates issued were genuine or not remained unanswered and under such circumstances, I cannot accept the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the Caste Certificates of the petitioners cannot be questioned by the SLSC at this stage. No doubt there is force in the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that SLSC has already held the Caste Certificate of Santanu Debbarma as genuine who belonged to the same clan of the petitioners. While the Caste Certificate of Santanu Debbarma has been held to be genuine, the Scrutiny Committee would not have taken a contrary decision in the case of the petitioners based on the same materials. It is an undisputed fact that the materials considered in the case of Santanu Debbarma and in the cases of the petitioners at hand were same and identical. So, the Scrutiny Committee cannot take different decision in cases of different persons of the same clan. 35. The principles of natural justice, as already held have not been followed in the present cases. Inquiry was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law. So, the Scrutiny Committee cannot take different decision in cases of different persons of the same clan. 35. The principles of natural justice, as already held have not been followed in the present cases. Inquiry was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law. The Vigilance Cell also did not direct inquiry as per the guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as laid down in Rule 7 A of the Tripura Rules. Statements of some persons recorded behind and back of the petitioners has been relied which are not acceptable. 36. The Guahati High Court in the case of Subodh Debbarma (supra) in paragraph 7 and 8 has held thus:- "7. From the scheme of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7A, what becomes clear is that opportunity of hearing has to be accorded to the person, whose community certificate is sought to be cancelled. Such a hearing would, obviously, include the right of the person, proceeded against, to cross-examine all such person(s), whose statements were recorded by the vigilance cell and, depending on whose statements, it was opined by the vigilance cell that the holder of the certificate was not a member of the community to which he is certified and/or that the claim of the community status of the person, proceeded against, is not genuine, doubtful, false or wrong. Opportunity of hearing shall also include a right to the proceedee, if so chooses, to adduce his own evidence in support of his claim that he is a member of the community, which he was certified to be. Having held enquiry as mentioned hereinbefore, if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the person, proceeded against, does not belong to the community, which he claims to belong to, his certificate shall be cancelled. Cancellation of such a certificate cannot be questioned by any suit or proceeding except in a court lower than the court of District Judge. 8. In the present case, the petitioner had been demanding that he be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements were being relied upon by the authorities concerned for the purpose of treating the petitioner as a member of Laskar community. However, the authorities concerned have not allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses aforementioned. 8. In the present case, the petitioner had been demanding that he be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statements were being relied upon by the authorities concerned for the purpose of treating the petitioner as a member of Laskar community. However, the authorities concerned have not allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses aforementioned. In such circumstances, cancellation of the petitioner's community certificate, on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to Tripuri community, is illegal and cannot but be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article226 of the Constitution of India." 37. In view of the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned Orders cancelling Caste Certificates of the petitioners were passed without following the procedure prescribed and without affording opportunity to the petitioners to defend their claims and hence those impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed. 38. The contention of learned G.A. that the cases should be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh is not acceptable in the facts of the present cases at hand. It is upto the appropriate authority as to whether they should go for further verification of the Caste status of the petitioners or not. In the given facts and circumstances of the present cases, where the Caste Certificate of Santanu Debbarma has been held good by SLSC, so long that decision stands, the Caste Certificates of the petitioners belonging to the same clan cannot be categorized to have not genuine or that the petitioners do not belong to the Tribal community. 39. The case of A. Gurusami (supra) referred by learned G.A. is on different context. In that case the Apex Court has held that a person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel against cancellation thereof. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment; the party making promise is stopped to resile from the promise. There is no such issue in the cases at hand. So, I find no manner of application of the law laid down in that case for decision of the present cases. 40. There is no such issue in the cases at hand. So, I find no manner of application of the law laid down in that case for decision of the present cases. 40. In the case of Ajit Jogi (supra) considering the particular facts and circumstances, the case was remanded back to the SLSC for fresh decision which is not similar to that of the present cases. 41. The Case of Anand (supra) also cannot hold to be in aid of the contention of learned G.A. 42. I find no reason to remand the cases with a direction to SLSC to initiate fresh inquiry. I also find no reason at all to direct that SLSC has no authority to initiate a fresh inquiry regarding genuinity and/or authenticity of the Caste Certificates issued in the name of the petitioners. 43. I find no reason to remand the cases with a direction to SLSC to initiate fresh inquiry. I also find no reason at all to direct that SLSC has no authority to initiate a fresh inquiry regarding genuinity and/or authenticity of the Caste Certificates issued in the name of the petitioners. 43. In view of the discussions made above--(i) in WP(C) 74 of 2006, the Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition), communicated by the Member Secretary of SLSC vide letter dated 24.01.2006 (Annexure-P to the writ petition) to the petitioner by the Member Secretary of SLSC; (ii) in WP(C) 75 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-N to the writ petition), communicated vide letter dated 24.01.2006 to the petitioner by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-O to the writ petition); (iii) in WP(C) 78 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner on 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-J to the writ petition); (iv) in WP(C) 80 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition); (v) in WP(C) 81 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-I to the writ petition); (vi) in WP(C) 82 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition); (vii) in WP(C) 94 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-O to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition); (viii) In WP(C) 95 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.07.2005 (Annexure-E to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 09.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-E to the writ petition); (ix) in WP(C) 402 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure-E to the writ petition),communicated to the petitioner on 12.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-F to the writ petition); (x) in WP(C) 404 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-H to the writ petition); (xi) in WP(C) 409 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure-L to the writ petition),communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-L to the writ petition); (xii) in WP(C) 428 of 2006 Order dated 23.08.2006 (Annexure-P to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-O to the writ petition); (xiii) in WP(C) 465 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 21.09.2006 (Annexure-P to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.10.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-P to the writ petition); (xiv) in WP(C) 397 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure-L to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter 27.09.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-M to the writ petition); (xiv) in WP(C) 106 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-J to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-J to the writ petition) & (xvi) in WP(C) 107 of 2006 Order of the SLSC dated 07.11.2005 (Annexure-K to the writ petition), communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2006 by the Member Secretary of SLSC (Annexure-K to the writ petition) are hereby set aside and quashed. In WP(C) 289 of 2006 Order of the SDM dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure-T to the writ petition) passed by the SDM, Kailashahar is also hereby set aside and quashed. 44. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.