Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 354 (TRI)

Phulu Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2014-11-03

U.B.SAHA

body2014
JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner though has not directly challenged the order of cancellation of her Scheduled Tribe Certificate, but challenged the letter dated 26.9.2006 whereby the petitioner was informed enclosing a copy of the order dated 23.8.2006 of the State Level Scrutiny Committee that her Scheduled Tribe Certificate was cancelled and has prayed for cancellation of the said letter along with the order dated 23.8.2006 on the ground that the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'SLSC') is based on no cogent materials and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to her to cross-examine the witnesses of the other side and no opportunity was also given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 2. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe Community (Tripuri community) of the State of Tripura and a caste certificate was issued by the competent authority after proper verification in her favour on 22.12.1987 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Her forefathers belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community (Tripuri) and enjoyed all benefits of Scheduled tribe. All on a sudden, she received a show cause notice dated 29.4.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Member Secretary of SLSC asking her to show cause as to why the caste certificate in her name should not be cancelled and she submitted her reply stating that the enquiry report submitted by the vigilance cell was vague and baseless and that, in the inquiry report, the vigilance officer has mentioned that he has examined four witness namely, (1) Sri Jogesh Debbarma, (2) Sri Jyoti Prakash Barman, (3) Sri Depangshu Choudhury and (4) Smt. Rita Debbarma and also the petitioner herself. It is the case of the petitioner that she had never seen those persons in any time and the so called Jyoti Prakash Barman duly purported and collected by the inquiring authority gave false statement against her as the said person is not related to their family in any manner and he has no right to challenge her caste status also. It is also stated that she is ready to cross-examine the said Jyoti Prakash and if the said Jyoti Prakash is examined, then the truth will be revealed. Her further case is that though those witnesses were examined, but she was not provided such opportunity for cross-examination of them by the SLSC. It appears from her show cause reply, she has stated that she must be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who are alleged to have been examined by the inquiry officer of the vigilance cell and that she should have been given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her contention that she belonged to ST community. 4. It is again contended by the petitioner that after the show cause reply, no opportunity was afforded to her to adduce any evidence or to cross-examine the enquiry officer and the witnesses listed in the inquiry report and by the order of cancellation of her caste status, all on a sudden, her scheduled tribe certificate was cancelled by the SLSC. Hence the writ petition. 5. The respondents have submitted their counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause as to why the ST certificate in her name should not be cancelled and she submitted show cause reply in writing. But the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of her contention that she belonged to ST community. The SLSC considering the enquiry report and other materials on record decided that the petitioner did not belong to ST community and accordingly, cancelled her ST certificate by order dated 23.8.2006, i.e. the order of cancellation of the ST certificate. 6. It is the case of the respondents that the forefathers of the petitioner were residents of a place, namely, Mogra, now Bangladesh and they have migrated from Mogra to the princely State of Tripura and that they have no origin in the State. Since the petitioner belonged to 'Laskar' community and could not show any material to justify that she belonged to S.T. Community of the State of Tripura, SLSC rightly cancelled the certificate and there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the SLSC. 7. Mr. Since the petitioner belonged to 'Laskar' community and could not show any material to justify that she belonged to S.T. Community of the State of Tripura, SLSC rightly cancelled the certificate and there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by the SLSC. 7. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity of being heard has not given to the petitioner to cross-examine the inquiry officer and the witnesses on the basis of whose statement, the inquiry officer submitted report that the petitioner do not belong to ST community. It is also submitted by Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner in her show cause reply demanded that she liked to adduce evidence in support of her case and wanted to cross-examine the witnesses, but no such opportunity was given. Referring to the order of cancellation, Mr. Roy Barman again submits that even the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the SLSC and that the SLSC simply considering the purported report of the inquiry officer of vigilance cell cancelled the certificate. He further submits that her full-blood sister, Smt. Rita Debbarma has also challenged the cancellation of her ST certificate by way of filing a writ petition being W.P(c) 231 of 2006 which was ultimately allowed by this Court interfering with the said order of cancellation though it was left open to the respondents whether they would proceed afresh or not in respect of the caste status certificate of her sister. 8. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the ST certificate of the petitioner, shows that the petitioner belongs to the ST community (Tripuri) of the State of Tripura and the caste certificate was issued on 22.12.1987. So, it is, prima facie, presumed that it was issued in due process after enquiry. The Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government as per provisions prescribed in Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 has been vested with the power to verify a caste certificate issued by the competent authority. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors, (1994) 6 SCC 241 directed the formation of the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste certificate in the event such a certificate is found to have been obtained fraudulently. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors, (1994) 6 SCC 241 directed the formation of the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste certificate in the event such a certificate is found to have been obtained fraudulently. As per the provision prescribed in Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, the vigilance cell submitted a report to the Scrutiny Committee stating that the petitioner does not belong to ST community and that she belongs to Laskar community. The inquiry officer of the vigilance cell recorded statement of four witnesses, namely, (1) Sri Jogesh Debbarma, (2) Sri Jyoti Prakash Barman, (3) Sri Depangshu Choudhury and (4) Smt. Rita Debbarma. 10. Upon going through the statements of the aforesaid persons, it appears that the petitioner was not given any opportunity for cross-examining them. Not only that, it also appears from the reply to the show cause notice that the petitioner herself prayed for giving her opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also allow her to produce the evidence in support of her case, but no such opportunity was provided to her. In view of the above, it can be easily said that the principle of natural justice was not followed by the SLSC while cancelling the ST certificate of the petitioner and thereby the reasonable opportunities have been denied to her. In Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, it is specifically stated that before cancellation of the caste certificate, the person whose caste status to be cancelled should be given reasonable opportunity to defend his/her case. Except the vigilance enquiry report, there was no other material before the SLSC for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to ST community, more so, the enquiry officer also based on the statements of those witnesses whom the petitioner could not cross-examine. 11. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate while refuting the submissions of Mr. Except the vigilance enquiry report, there was no other material before the SLSC for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to ST community, more so, the enquiry officer also based on the statements of those witnesses whom the petitioner could not cross-examine. 11. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate while refuting the submissions of Mr. Roy Barman, referred to the Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner was asked to appear in person before the SLSC on 23.8.2006 and it appears from the record that she appeared on 23.8.2006 and made a written prayer for allowing her to cross-examine the witnesses who are alleged to have made the statements and in reply to the said written prayer, the respondents did not inform her anything as to whether she was entitled to cross-examine the witnesses or not. 12. This court has also gone through the judgment of this Court in WP(C) 231 of 2006 filed by Smt. Rita Debbarma, a full blood sister of the petitioner, wherein the impugned order dated 27.01.2006 in that case was interfered with and consequent thereto, set aside and quashed the impugned order. 13. This court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the order of cancellation of caste certificate is to be interfered with though the same has not been directly challenged in the instant writ petition. It appears from the record that her whole grievance is against the said cancellation of her caste status. Accordingly, the letter dated 26.9.2006 as well as its enclosure, the order of cancellation dated 23.8.2006, is hereby set aside and quashed. It is, however, left open to the respondents whether they shall proceed afresh or not in respect of the caste status certificate of the petitioner. It is made clear that if it is decided by the SLSC to proceed afresh, then the petitioner should be provided all opportunities including her right to cross-examine the witnesses and adduce evidence in support of her case in accordance with law. 14. With the above order, the writ petition is disposed of.