Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 305 (TRI)

Debabrata Bhowmik v. State of Tripura

2014-08-02

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:-- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. D. Chakraborty for the petitioner and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned G.A. Mr. T. Dutta Majumder for the respondents. 2. The petitioner contended that he belonged to ‘Mahishya Das’ community which is recognized as a ‘Scheduled Caste’ Community in the State of Tripura and a certificate was issued in his name after proper inquiry on 17.11.1977. A copy of the said Caste Certificate annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition. In the year 2002 the District Magistrate and Collector (respondent No. 5) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his Scheduled Caste Certificate should not be cancelled and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice but thereafter by the Memo dated 22.08.2002 his Caste Certificate was cancelled. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged Memo dated 22.08.2002 by filing WP(C) No. 361 of 2002 in the Agartala Bench of Gauhati High court and by judgment dated 04.01.2006 (common judgment), the High Court quashed the impugned Memo dated 22.08.2002 with the following observation:- “19. A perusal of the procedure followed by the competent authority in the above noted cases would go to show that the inquiry was done keeping the petitioners or their parents/relatives in dark and without affording any reasonable opportunity to them or their guardians or parents. It is also evident that there was no involvement of any Vigilance Officer or Director of the department in conducting the inquiry. The manner in which the certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled cannot be said to be consistent with the principles of natural justice and, therefore, in my considered view, all those orders impugned herein cancelling the caste certificates of the petitioners are not sustainable in law and consequently, they stand quashed and set aside. 20. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the light of the discussions made above with a direction to the State respondents to refer the cases of the petitioners to the scrutiny committee, which is competent to cause an inquiry to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court as noted above and contained in the notification dated 12.12.2003 of the State Government. Till the entire process of inquiry and decision making is completed, the status of the petitioners herein and all the benefits flowing therefrom shall remain unhindered and unaffected. There shall be no order as to cost.” 2.1 Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner by the Member Secretary of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his show-cause reply on 17.03.2007 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). It is the contention of the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee did not resort to any inquiry in respect of the Caste Certificate of the petitioner and only after issuing the show-cause notice by an order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee which was communicated by the Member Secretary vide letter dated 27.08.2007 (collectively marked as Annexure-D to the writ petition) cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition inter alia seeking quashing of the said order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and communicated by the Member Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee dated 27.08.2007. It is contended by the petitioner that an inquiry was conducted by the State Vigilance Cell which has submitted report that the petitioner belonged to ‘Mahishya Das’ community, a community recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State but the Caste Certificate has been cancelled taking into consideration some inquiry reports of the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted long before the Caste Certificate was earlier enquired by the District Magistrate which order was quashed by the High Court in WP(C) No. 361 of 2002. The inquiry report, on the basis of which the Caste Certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled not even supplied to him and what has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee was not even reflected in the show-cause notice. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 3. The inquiry report, on the basis of which the Caste Certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled not even supplied to him and what has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee was not even reflected in the show-cause notice. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 3. Respondents by filing counter affidavits contended that after the judgment in the writ case filed by the petitioner and others i.e. WP(C) 361/2002, the State Level Scrutiny Committee took the Caste Certificate verification matter of the petitioner based on some specific complaint received by the competent authority and the State Level Scrutiny Committee through its Member Secretary issued show-cause notice detailing therein the reasons as to why the Caste Certificate should not be cancelled and on receipt of that show-cause notice, the petitioner did not give any effective response and simply stated that the show-cause notice has been issued in violation of the terms of order passed by the High Court in WP(C) No. 361/2002 etc. and that the Scrutiny Committee after carefully following the procedure prescribed by law and the materials before it, rightly cancelled the Caste Certificate. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty for the petitioner has submitted that after judgment dated 04.01.2006 passed by the High Court in WP(C) No. 361/2002, the Scrutiny Committee issued a show-cause notice dated 21.02.2007 and did not resort to any inquiry whatsoever to determine the Caste status of the petitioner as to whether the Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority was correct or not. The petitioner submitted his reply. No scope was afforded thereafter to give evidence. No new material was also collected by the Scrutiny Committee. As per the show-cause notice, a vigilance report was available before the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner belonged to ‘Mahishya Das’ community, a community recognized as Scheduled Caste but that report has been ignored whereas some report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura was taken into consideration which was also considered at the time of cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the earlier cancellation order dated 22.08.2002 which has been quashed by the High Court in the writ case and based on same materials in the same manner, the Caste Certificate of the petitioner has again been cancelled. 5. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Deb has submitted that all the inquiry reports were before the Scrutiny Committee for consideration. 5. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Deb has submitted that all the inquiry reports were before the Scrutiny Committee for consideration. After the order of the High Court dated 04.01.2006, no new inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell. Based on the materials, already on record, the Scrutiny Committee taken up the issue for consideration. The petitioner in his show-cause reply did not make any prayer to adduce any evidence or for a personal hearing. The Scrutiny Committee therefore, taking into account the reports of different authorities, cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner with a reasoned order which do not deserve interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution since there is no infirmity in the order. It is also contended by learned Sr. counsel Mr. Deb that burden lies on the petitioner to prove that he belonged to Scheduled Caste Community and the Caste Certificate was issued in his name was genuine. Since he has failed to discharge his burden, the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall sustain. 6. It is an admitted position that the Caste Certificate annexed as Annexure-A to the writ petition, in the name of the petitioner, dated 17.11.1977, was issued by a competent authority and it is to be presumed that it was issued in due process of law. It is also an admitted position that by a Memo dated 22.08.2002 the said Caste Certificate was cancelled by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala and challenging that cancellation order, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 361/2002 before the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court and the High Court by judgment dated 04.01.2006 quashed the memorandum of cancellation dated 22.08.2002 on the ground that the opportunity which was supposed to be afforded to the petitioner before cancelling the Caste Certificate was not afforded to him. It is an admitted position that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was cancelled based on some reports of SDM, Sonamura, etc. submitted before the District Magistrate and Collector i.e. the appropriate authority which had cancelled the Caste Certificate. It is also an admitted position that after the judgment passed by the High Court in the writ case, the Member Secretary of the State Level Scrutiny Committee issued show-cause notice dated 21.02.2007 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 17.03.2007. It is also an admitted position that after the judgment passed by the High Court in the writ case, the Member Secretary of the State Level Scrutiny Committee issued show-cause notice dated 21.02.2007 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 17.03.2007. The State Level Scrutiny Committee did not resort to any fresh inquiry by the Vigilance Cell or otherwise. It is an admitted position that based on the same material which was earlier considered by the District Magistrate and Collector at the time of issuing the memorandum dated 22.08.2002 cancelling the Caste Certificate, the present impugned order of cancellation has been issued. 7. For fair appreciation, the contents of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) is reproduced which reads follows:- GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA MEMBER-SECRETARY STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (DIRECTORATE FOR WELFARE OF SCs & OBCS) TRIPURA:: AGARTALA No. 19817/F.2-136(MLG)-3/SCW/GL/98 Dated 21/02/2007. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHEREAS an S.C. Certificate bearing No. 981/DM/GL/W/77 dated 17/11/1977 was issued to Sri Debabrata Bhowmik S/O Sri Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Vill-Taililing PS-Sonamura, West Tripura. .............. by the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District. And WHEREAS a complaint was received against Sri Debabrata Bhowmik, S/O Lt. Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Vill-Taijiling, PS-Sonamura, West Tripura District ........... for obtaining SC certificate by misrepresentation of fact. And WHEREAS an enquiry was conducted through the officials of the Special Vigilance Cell for ascertaining the Caste status of the certificate holder and the report of the Dy. Supdt. of Police, Special Vigilance Cell indicates that Sri Debabrata Bhowmik, S/O. Lt. Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Taijiling PS-Melaghar West Tripura ..........belongs to Sch. Caste (Copy of the report enclosed). And WHEREAS an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura and the enquiry report reveals that Sri Bhowmik does not belong to Sch. Caste but belongs to Barui community which is recognized as OBC in the State of Tripura (copy enclosed). And WHEREAS an opinion was obtained from the SC Welfare Sub-committee of Melaghar Block which reveals that Sri Bhowmik does not belong to Sch. Caste but belongs to Barui community which is recognized as OBC in the State of Tripura. (copy enclosed). Caste but belongs to Barui community which is recognized as OBC in the State of Tripura (copy enclosed). And WHEREAS an opinion was obtained from the SC Welfare Sub-committee of Melaghar Block which reveals that Sri Bhowmik does not belong to Sch. Caste but belongs to Barui community which is recognized as OBC in the State of Tripura. (copy enclosed). And WHEREAS the undersigned on perusal of the records and after taking into consideration the above mentioned enquiry reports is prima facie satisfied that Sri Debabrata Bhowmik, accused SC certificate holder, does not belong to Scheduled Caste and hence proposes to cancel and confiscate the SC Certificate No. 981/DM/GL/W/77 dated 17/11/1977 of Sri Debabrata Bhowmik. NOW, THEREFORE, the said Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is hereby given an opportunity to make his representation, if any, in writing in support of his caste status along with relevant records/evidences within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it shall be presumed that he has got nothing to say against the proposed cancellation of his SC Certificate and a decision shall be taken accordingly ex-parte. The said Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is also asked to specifically mention in his representation, if he makes any, whether he seeks an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in behalf, failing which it shall be presumed that he does neither seek any opportunity of hearing nor claim any inquiry to be made in that behalf and the said issue shall be decided finally on the basis of available records. (B.B. Das, IAS) Member-Secretary (Director for Welfare of Sch. Castes & OBCs) Tripura::: Agartala. Enclo: As stated (12 sheets) To Sri Debabrata Bhowmik S/O Sri Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Taijiling PS-Melaghar West Tripura.” 8. The impugned order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee reads as follows:- “27-06-07 A complaint was received against Sri Debabrata Bhowmik S/O. Sri Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Taijiling, PS-Melaghar, West Tripura for obtaining of false SC Certificate. 2. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura has cancelled the SC Certificate of Sri Debabrata Bhowmik bearing No. 981/DM/GL/W/77 dated 17/11/1977 as per Memorandum No. F.6(153)-DM/W/GL/1999/3291-99 dated 22/8/2002. 3. 2. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura has cancelled the SC Certificate of Sri Debabrata Bhowmik bearing No. 981/DM/GL/W/77 dated 17/11/1977 as per Memorandum No. F.6(153)-DM/W/GL/1999/3291-99 dated 22/8/2002. 3. Sri Debabrata Bhowmik has challenged the cancellation order of the DM & Collector West Tripura in the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench vide W.P.(C) No. 361 of 2002. The Hon’ble Gauhati High court made a direction in this case to the State respondent to refer the case to the Scrutiny Committee. 4. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 4/10/06. In which it was indicated that Sri Debabrata Bhowmik actually belong to Mahishyadas Community which is recognized as Sch. Caste in Tripura. Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is working under fisheries Deptt. under Govt. of Tripura. 5. The matter was also referred to BDO Melaghar for obtaining views of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee Melaghar Block. The BDO-Melaghar sent the views of SC Welfare Sub-Committee on 02/05/95 in which it was stated that Sri Debabrata Bhowmik S/O Lt. Gopal Krishna Bhowmik of Taijiling does not belong to Sch. Caste but “Barui” Community. 6. A showcause notice was issued to Sri Debabrata Bhowmik giving him an opportunity to represent about his caste status. In reply to showcause notice Sri Debabrata Bhowmik did not submit any documentary evidence in favour of his caste status and he did not seek any personal hearing. He has only stated that the showcause notice amount to abuse and misuse of Govt. power and a deliberate harassment and embarrassment for him and his family members. 7. The State Level Scrutiny Committee after careful examination of the facts and records came to the conclusion that Sri Debabrata Bhowmik S/O Lt. Gopal Krishna Bhowmik Vill-Taijiling P.S.-Melaghar, West Tripura does not belong to Sch. Caste. 8. It is therefore ordered that the SC Certificate bearing No. 981/DM/GL/W/77 dated 17/11/1977 issued by the Addl. District Magistrate & Collector West Tripura in favour of Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is hereby cancelled and confiscated. Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is directed to submit his original Sch. Caste certificate within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order to the Directorate for Welfare of SCs & OBC. Issue copy of the order to the certificate issuing authority for making an entry in the issue register accordingly. Sri Debabrata Bhowmik is directed to submit his original Sch. Caste certificate within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order to the Directorate for Welfare of SCs & OBC. Issue copy of the order to the certificate issuing authority for making an entry in the issue register accordingly. Also issue a copy each to the Director of Fisheries and Sri Debabrata Bhowmik. Typed to the dictation & Corrected by us Sd/- MemberSecretary (Director, SC & OBC Welfare) Sd/- Member (Deputy Secretary, Law Deptt.) Sd/- Member (Joint Director, SC & OBC Welfare) Sd/- Chairman, (Commissioner & Secretary, SC & OBC Welfare.)” 9. A reading of the show cause notice, reproduced above, makes it clear that Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry in respect of Caste Certificate of the petitioner and a report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Another report was submitted by SDM, Sonamura wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner belonged to “Barui” community. SC Welfare Committee of Melaghar Block also submitted a report that the petitioner belonged to “Barui” community. All those reports admittedly were collected before issuance of the Memorandum dated 22.08.2002 by the District Magistrate and Collector which has been quashed by the High Court in the writ case. 10. A reading of the impugned cancellation order dated 27.06.2007 shows that the Scrutiny Committee taken into consideration the report of the Vigilance Cell dated 04.10.2006 i.e. a report before show cause notice was issued and in that report the Vigilance Cell observed that the petitioner belonged to SC community. The Scrutiny Committee considered views of BDO, Melaghar on the SC Welfare Sub-Committee report dated 02.05.1995 and based on that report of BDO, Melaghar, the Scrutiny Committee cancelled the SC Certificate of the petitioner by impugned order dated 27.06.2007. There is nothing that SC Welfare Sub-Committee report dated 02.05.1995 with the views of BDO, Melaghar was referred in the show-cause notice. It is totally in dark as to on the basis of what the Scrutiny Committee cancelled the Caste Certificate by impugned order dated 27.06.2007. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. V. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., reported in : (1994) 6 SCC 241 has laid down the law regarding verification of Caste status. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 are relevant which reads as follows:- “13. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. V. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., reported in : (1994) 6 SCC 241 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. 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. 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. 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, daiety, 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. 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-à-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-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 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-to-day 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. 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. 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. 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.” 12. In paragraph 13, the Apex Court streamlined the procedure for issuance of Social Caste Certificate, scrutiny thereof for approval or cancellation etc. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.” 12. 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 Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. V. Laveti Giri & Anr., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 in Paragraph 7 of the judgment. 13. 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 socio-economic 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.” 14. In the case of Dayaram V. Sudhir Batham & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 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. 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. 15. 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. 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.” 16. The State Govt. has 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. The State Govt. has 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.]1 17. 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. 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. 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. 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. After giving such opportunity in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-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. 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-to-day 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]1[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. (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. (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]”1 18. It is an admitted position that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was cancelled earlier by Memorandum dated 22.08.2002 by the District Magistrate & Collector. The High Court in WP(C) No. 361 of 2002, by order dated 04.01.2006 quashed that Memo of cancellation with the observation that the principles of natural justice was not followed and reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Obviously based on certain materials the impugned Memo. Dated 22.08.2002 was passed. While that Memo itself was quashed, the State Level Scrutiny Committee based on those earlier materials would not pass a fresh order cancelling the Caste Status Certificate of the petitioner without resorting to an inquiry as prescribed in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and the procedure prescribed in the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992. This is a case where the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed at all. So the question of shifting burden on the petitioner to prove his case does not arise at all. 19. It is the absolute domain of the authority to verify the Caste status certificate of any person holding such a certificate at any time but that verification must be done according to the procedure prescribed by law affording opportunity to the person likely to be aggrieved by any action to be taken by the authority. Since in the present case the State Level Scrutiny Committee has failed to conduct any inquiry according to the procedure prescribed by law, there is no other option but to quash the impugned order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 27.06.2007 which was communicated by the Member Secretary of the Committee dated 27.08.2007 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 21. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 21. The impugned order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and forwarded by the Member Secretary of the Committee dated 27.08.2007 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) accordingly stands quashed. 22. Parties to bear their own costs.