Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 104 (TRI)

Maran Das Bishnab v. State of Tripura

2016-04-15

S.C.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : By filing this writ petition the petitioner prayed for following reliefs:- “(I) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for quashing/setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2010 & the impugned Order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure-P7 & Annexure-P10 respectively supra); (II) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them , to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing the respondents, to revoke/rescind the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2010 & the impugned Order dated 03.10.20139 Annexure-P7 & Annexure-P10 respectively supra); (III) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Prohibition and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, restraining/prohibiting the respondents, from acting in any manner, in furtherance of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 05.05.2010 & the impugned Order dated 03.10.2013(Annexure-P7 supra & Annexure-P10 respectively supra);” 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents. 3. Itis inter alia contended by the petitioner that he belonged to Mahishyadas community, recognized as Schedule Caste by the State. Respondent No.4 issued a caste certificate in his name on 24.09.1977 after proper verification etc. His father Balaram Baishnab also had a caste certificate issued in his name and that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth. The local MLA on 15.01.1977 issued a certificate in his name certifying that he belonged to Mahishyadas community, which is recognized as a ‘Schedule Caste’ community of the State. In the family registration record, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4, the petitioner and his family have been recognized as Mahishyadas community, a schedule caste community. The local MLA on 15.01.1977 issued a certificate in his name certifying that he belonged to Mahishyadas community, which is recognized as a ‘Schedule Caste’ community of the State. In the family registration record, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4, the petitioner and his family have been recognized as Mahishyadas community, a schedule caste community. It is further contended by the petitioner that one Chittaranjan Sharma, Sub Divisional Tribal Welfare Officer of Sabroom, South Tripura lodged an FIR before the O/C Sabroom P.S. alleging that the petitioner did not belong to S.C. community and that FIR was registered as Sabroom P.S. Case No.9(11) 1990 under Sections 420, 468 IPC, which was subsequently registered as GR 149 of 1990 and police after investigation submitted final report in the case with a prayer to acquit the accused honourably since the allegation was made as a mistake of fact. That final report was accepted by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom by order dated 19.09.1995(copy is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition). It is contended by the petitioner that on the basis of a one line anonymous complaint, respondent No.2 through its Member Secretary issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that prima facie the respondent was satisfied that the caste status of the petitioner was doubtful and proposed to cancel the same and therefore asked him to make his representation with evidence. The petitioner submitted reply contending that he belonged to Mahishyadas community and that the certificate issued was genuine. The State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short 'SLSC') directed an inquiry through the Special Vigilance Cell in respect of the caste status of the petitioner and the Vigilance Cell after inquiry submitted report to the SLSC that the petitioner belonged to Mahishyadas community. The Vigilance Cell in course of inquiry recorded statements of witnesses and copies of those were also enclosed with the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Cell, copies of which are marked as Annexure-7 collectively. The Vigilance Cell in course of inquiry recorded statements of witnesses and copies of those were also enclosed with the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Cell, copies of which are marked as Annexure-7 collectively. In the course of inquiry the petitioner examined himself and also examined other witnesses in support of his contention that he belonged to Mahishyadas community, but the SLSC taking into consideration a minutes of the meeting of Schedule Caste Welfare Sub Committee of Satchand R.D. Block dated 18.11.1999 which was signed by Block Development Officer Satchand R.D Block and a letter of the Sub Divisional Officer, Sabroom addressed to the Director of Tribal Welfare, dated 28.06.1999 arrived at an conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the S.C. community and accordingly by impugned order dated 3.10.2013 which was forwarded by the Member Secretary, SLSC by letter dated 10.10.2013 canceled and confiscated the caste certificate dated 24.09.1977 issued in the name of the petitioner by respondent No.4. 4. The respondents inter alia contended that the petitioner did not in fact belong to the Schedule Caste community. He belongs to the 'Debnath' community and falsely represented himself as belonged to the Mahishyadas community and obtained the caste certificate from the office of the District Magistrate & Collector wrongly representing himself as a member of scheduled caste community. Vigilance inquiry was directed against the petitioner and report was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Cell, but the SLSC was not satisfied with the report of the Vigilance Cell since there was no evidence produced by the Vigilance Cell to show that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, SLSC issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why caste certificate issued in his name should not be cancelled. It is also contended by the respondents that SLSC afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce all evidence in support of his claim and accordingly the petitioner adduced evidence but the evidence was not satisfactory to come to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. It is also contended by the respondents that SLSC afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce all evidence in support of his claim and accordingly the petitioner adduced evidence but the evidence was not satisfactory to come to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community. It is also contended that certificate of registration issued in the name of father of the petitioner(Annexure-P-I) shows that the birth place of Balaram Baishnab, father of the petitioner was at Machimpur, Noakhali, whereas the petitioner in his statement before SLSC stated that his forefather resided at village Nijampur under Barisal District of Bangladesh wherefrom they shifted to Sabroom and that statement of the petitioner is collaborated by the statement of the Birendra Kumar Das, recorded by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell. Therefore, there was a doubt about the origin of the petitioner and the SLSC after considering all materials arrived at a finding that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste community and hence cancelled the certificate. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Deb appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Tribal Welfare Officer lodged an FIR in 1990 alleging that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. Police investigated the case and submitted final report stating that the FIR was a mistake of fact and prayed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to acquit the petitioner and accordingly final report was accepted. Thereafter, a one-line anonymous complaint was received that the petitioner did not belong to S.C. community and on the basis of that complaint a vigilance inquiry was directed by the Special Vigilance Cell, which submitted report that the petitioner actually belonged to S.C. community. It is contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Deb that once vigilance inquiry has been done and it is reported that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community, no further action should be taken on the issue. He has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. It is contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Deb that once vigilance inquiry has been done and it is reported that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste community, no further action should be taken on the issue. He has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and also referring to the provisions of Section 7A of the Tripura Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Reservation Rules, 1992 has submitted that there is no scrap of evidence at all in the record to even remotely suggest that the scheduled caste certificate issued in the name of the petitioner in the year 1977 was false or that the petitioner did not belong to scheduled caste community. All the witnesses examined by the vigilance cell, copies of which annexed with the writ petition, stated that the petitioner belonged to Mahishyadas community. The petitioner also produced several witnesses who stated that the petitioner belonged to Mahishyadas community. Only referring to one paragraph of the minutes of the meeting of Scheduled Caste Welfare Special Sub-Committee of Satchand R.D. Block, which was signed by Block Development Officer, Satchand R.D. Block and a letter of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom addressed to the Director, Tribal Welfare Department, dated 28.06.1999, the SLSC arrived at a finding that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community and thereby directed cancellation and confiscation of the certificate. The action taken by the SLSC is not based on any material at all and the order has been issued on whims and caprice and therefore the order is liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Additional G.A., Mr. Chakraborty on the other hand has submitted that SLSC is the authorized body as per the rules to determine as to whether a particular caste status certificate is genuine or not. Burden lies on the petitioner to prove that that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to prove his caste status and, hence, the order did not suffer from any perversity and, therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in the order. 7. I am quite aware that the power of judicial review of the decision of a domestic tribunal is very limited. 7. I am quite aware that the power of judicial review of the decision of a domestic tribunal is very limited. Such judicial review is possible only when the principle of natural justice has been violated i.e. the opportunities, which ought to be given to the respondent, were not given or that the decision of the domestic tribunal was based on no evidence and that the decision is shocking to the judicial conscience. If there is no glaring violation of principles of natural justice and there is some evidence to support the decision taken by the administrative authority, the Court cannot sit as a matter of appeal and substitute the finding of the administrative authority with its own finding. But where the decision of the administrative authority is based on no cogent material, this Court has ample jurisdiction to interfere into the matter. The Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has laid down the law regarding verification of caste status. Paragraph 13, 14 and 15 are relevant which are quoted 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, 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. 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-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 nonofficial 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. 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. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 15. 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.” 8. The law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has been reiterated substantially by the Apex Court in subsequent decisions in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri & Anr., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 . The Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof of social status is always on the person who profess it to seek constitutional, socio-economic advantages. 9. The State has Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991. Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the State Government has made Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 (hereinafter mentioned as Rules) prescribing thereunder the law relating to the cancellation of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes certificate. 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 Castes 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.” Rule 7A has been incorporated following the directions of 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 (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 Caste, 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 consists 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 of 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. (2) 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. (2) 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. (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 330 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case, the certificate holder seeks an opportunity of hearing and claims as 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-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-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 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 in 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.” 10. It is an admitted position that Annexure-P-3 i.e. the Caste Certificate dated 24.09.1977 was issued by the District Magistrate and Collector in the name of the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was born at village Bijoynagar under Sabroom Sub Division of the then South Tripura District. He was certified to be of Mahishyadas community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste community. His family registration certificate also reflects that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. His father’s caste certificate also produced wherein he was certified as Mahishyadas community. 11. He was certified to be of Mahishyadas community which was recognized as Scheduled Caste community. His family registration certificate also reflects that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. His father’s caste certificate also produced wherein he was certified as Mahishyadas community. 11. On the basis of an anonymous one-line complaint which is annexed as Annexure-P-6 colly the SLSC initiated a vigilance inquiry against the petitioner. The report was submitted to SLSC by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Cell on 17.05.2005 and it was clearly stated that the petitioner belonged to the Mahishyadas community, recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State. The copy of the report and the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Inspector of Police, Special Vigilance Cell annexed as Annexure-P-7 colly. From the report it appears that the vigilance inspector examined nine witnesses and other relevant documents and thereafter he observed— “EVIDENCES: From the Statement of the witnesses and the documents exam. It revealed that Sri Maran Das Baishnab was born on 20/1/1959 at Bijoynagar PS Subroom Dist South Tripura. He had taken school education from Brajendra Nagar High School/Subroom Boy's High school and then Higher Education from Belonia College and passed B.A. in the year 1980. He joined Govt. Service post of Asstt. Teacher Department Education on his appointment against the reserved post of S.C. on the basis of his SC Certificate issued vide No.F.102/(S)CTZN/77 dt 24.9.1977 by the DM & Collector South Tripura Udiapur. It further revealed that her father his/her father namely Lt. Balaram Baishnab actually belongs to Mahishyadas community. Opinion:-In view of the evidences discussed above it has clearly been established that Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/O Balaram Baishnab of Thaibong PS SBM Dist South Tripura actually belongs to Mahishya Das Community. Which is recognized as scheduled caste. So the social caste status certificate issued by the DM & Collector South Tripura Udaipur vide his No.F.102/DM(S)/CTZN/77 dt 24/9/77 against Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/O Lt. Balaram Baishnab is genuine. Submitted to the scrutiny committee through Dy.S.P. State Level Special Vigilance Cell for kind information and doing the needful (B. Deb Roy) E/O State Level special Vigilance Cell Agartala.” 12. The SLSC in spite of the above report of the vigilance cell issued show cause notice dated 05.05.2010 contending as follows:- “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHEREAS a S.C. Certificate bearing No.102/DM(S)/CTZN/77 dated 24.9.77 was issued to Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/o Lt. The SLSC in spite of the above report of the vigilance cell issued show cause notice dated 05.05.2010 contending as follows:- “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHEREAS a S.C. Certificate bearing No.102/DM(S)/CTZN/77 dated 24.9.77 was issued to Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/o Lt. Balaram Baishna of Bijoynagar, Sabroom PS-, South Tripura District now at Taibang, PS-Sabroom, South Tripura by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura. AND WHEREAS a complaint was received against said Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/.O. Lt Balaram Baishna of Bijoynagar, Sabroom PS-South Tripura District now at Taibang. PS-Sabroom, South Tripura for obtaining Scheduled Caste Certificate by misrepresentation of facts. AND WHEREAS an enquiry was conducted through the Vigilance for ascertaining the Caste status of the said certificate holder and the report of the Dy. Supdt. of police, Vigilance dated 17-05-2005 indicates that Sri Maran Das Baishnab belongs to Scheduled Caste. Mahisyadas Community which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the Sate of Tripura. (Copy enclosed) AND WHEREAS the Block Development Officer, Satchand R.D. Block submitted a report of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee of Satchand Block alongwith a resolution adopted on 18.11.99 wherein it was indicated that said Sri Maran Das Baishnab does not belong to Scheduled Caste (copy enclosed) AND WHEREAS the Sub-Divisional Officer Sabroom, South Tripura conducted an enquiry on 28-6-99 wherein it was clearly indicated that Sri Maran Dasbaishnab belongs to Nath community which is recognized as OBC. (copy enclosed) AND WHEREAS the State Level Scrutiny Committee on perusal of the records and after taking into consideration the above mentioned facts in prima facie satisfied that the caste status of said Sri Maran Dasbaishnab appears to be doubtful and propose to cancell the said certificate. NOW, THEREFORE, the said Sri Maran Dasbaishnab is hereby given an opportunity to make representation or reply if any, in writing with relevant records/evidences within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which decision shall be taken ex-parte. He is also at liberty to seek personal hearing and this should be mentioned in his representation Enclo:-Stated (i) Vigilance Report dated 17-05-05 15(fifteen sheets) (ii) Report of SC Welfare Sub-Committee Satchand R.D. Block 2(Two sheets) (iii) Report of SDO-Sabroom South Tripura 4(four sheet) (iv) Copy of Complaint 1(one sheet)” Sd/- Member Secretary (Director for Welfare of Sch. Castes & OBCs) Tripura : Agartala 13. Castes & OBCs) Tripura : Agartala 13. The petitioner submitted the show cause reply and also adduced evidence in support of his claim of caste status. All the witnesses examined by the petitioner stated that the petitioner belonged to Mahishyadas community. 14. In spite of the fact that the vigilance inquiry held at the instance of SLSC found the petitioner belonged to the Mahishyadas community and in spite of the fact that the police case instituted against the petitioner ended in final report, the SLSC taking into account a resolution of Schedule Caste Welfare Sub-Committee of Satchand R.D. Block dated 18.11.1999 signed by Block Development Officer, Satchand on 30.11.1999 and a letter of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom addressed to the Director of Schedule Caste Welfare dated 28.06.1999 arrived at a finding that the caste certificate of the petitioner was not genuine and directed its cancellation and confiscation. The observation of SLSC has been recorded in para 22, 23 and 24 of the impugned order dated 3.10.2013 which reads as follows:- “22. After careful examination of the report of SC Welfare Sub-Committee, Satchand R.D. Block. The SC Welfare Sub-Committee clearly indicated that Sari Maran Das Baishnab S/O Lt. Balaram Baishnab does not belongs to SC community and the report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sabroom informed that Sri Maran Dasbaishnab does not belong to SC Community rather he belongs to Nath Community which is not recognized as Sch. Caste in the State of Tripura. 23. The SLSC also observed the vigilance report dated on 17/05/2005 enquired by Sri Bikash Deb Roy, Inspector of Police wherein he stated that he examined some witnesses who are neighbourers of Sri Maran Das Baishnab. He also stated that Sri Maran Das Baishnab got Govt. job in the post of Asstt. Teacher on the basis of his SC Certificate against SC reserved post and his father namely Lt. Balaram Baishnab actually belongs to Mahisyadas Community. So Sri Maran Das Baishnab belongs to Mahisyadas Community. But the committee did not accept the Vigilance report on the ground that the enquiry officer did not furnish any supporting evidence which could prove that. Sri Maran Das Baishnab belong to the Mahisya Das Community. 24. In view of the above the State Level Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion that Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/O Lt. Balaram Baishnab does not belong to Mahisya Das Community. Sri Maran Das Baishnab belong to the Mahisya Das Community. 24. In view of the above the State Level Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion that Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/O Lt. Balaram Baishnab does not belong to Mahisya Das Community. Rather verification report of SC Welfare Sub-Committee and the report of SDM, Sabroom mentioned in para no.22 indicates that Sri Maran Das Baishnab does not belongs to Sch. Caste, Therefore, now the SLSC decides to cancel the Sch. Caste Certificate issued to Sri Maran Das Baishnab and accordingly Sch. Caste Certificate bearing No.102/DM(S)/CTZN/77 dt. 24/09/1977 issued by District Magistrate & Collector South Tripura is here by cancelled and confiscated.” 15. Let us now have a glimpse to the minutes of the meeting of the Schedule Caste Welfare Sub Committee held on 18.11.1999. In para 2 of that minutes of the meeting, following was the observation of the Schedule Caste Welfare Sub Committee:- “2. The Caste Status of Sri Maran Das Baishanab S/O Sri Balaram Baishanab of Bijoynagar, Sabroom. The SCW Sub-Committee scrutinizes carefully and decided that Shri Maran Das Baisnab son of Sri Balaram Baisnab of Bijoynagar do not belongs to scheduled caste Community. His Schedule Caste Certificate must be cancelled at an early date by the issuing authority.” 16. There is no evidence as to on the basis of what material the Sub-Committee arrived at the above finding in respect of the petitioner. So in my considered opinion, SLSC should not have taken into consideration this observation of the Sub Committee since it was not substantiated by any evidence. The letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom dated 28.06.1999 reads as follows :- “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISION OFFICER SABROOM: SOUTH TRIPURA. No.F.24(7)/SDO/SBM/CON/99/141 Dated, Sabroom, the 28/6/99 To The Director for welfare of Sch. Castes & OBCs, Tripura, Agartala. Subject:- Verification of SC certificate of Sri Maran Das Baishnab S/O Sri Balai Baishnab of Jalafa, Thaibong Sabroom. Ref :- Your's No.14168/F.2-140(SBM-23)/SCW/GL/98 dated 12/1/99. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, the matter has been enquired into by R.I. Sabroom on 26/12/90. The photo copy of the enquiry report and the statement of Sri Ranjit Paul, Chairman, Thaibong Development Committee, Sabroom is enclosed herewith. It may be mentioned here that no S.C. certificate had been issued in favour of Sri Maran Das Baishnab from this end. A report of the same is also enclosed as ready reference. The photo copy of the enquiry report and the statement of Sri Ranjit Paul, Chairman, Thaibong Development Committee, Sabroom is enclosed herewith. It may be mentioned here that no S.C. certificate had been issued in favour of Sri Maran Das Baishnab from this end. A report of the same is also enclosed as ready reference. This is for favour of your kind perusal and doing the needful please. Enclo:- As stated. 3 (three) sheets. Yours Faithfully Sd/- Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom” 17. It appears from the above letter that the letter was written by Sub-Divisional Officer based on the report of Revenue Inspector, Sabroom dated 26.12.1990 and that report of Revenue Inspector, Sabroom reads as follows:- “To The S.D.O. Sabroom South Tripura, Sub:- Enquiry report in connection with issuing S/C Certificate in favour of Shri Marandas Baisnab. Ref:- As per your order in the body of the original massage., Sir, With reference to the above this to state that the Chairman of Taibong Village Shri Ranjit Paul has given his statement in written that Shri Paul is an inhabitant of Thaibong Village since long time and as Chairman and general public he is aware about the family of Shri Maran Das Baishnab,. Shri Paul know Shri Das Baisnab as a man of Nath Community as Sri Das Baisnab's social Illegible also... illegible with Nath Community. Sri Raj Kumar Das the Secretary of S/C Committee of Satchand Block also asked about Shri Das Baisnab and he also stated that Shri Das Baisnab is the man of Nath Community hence submitted for doing the ...Illegible. Yours faithfully Sd/- Illegible 26/12/90 Enclo: 1. The Statement of Sri Ranjit Paul the chariman of Thaibong ..Illegible.” 18. A reading of the above makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of statement of Ranjit Pal the report was given. That Ranjit Pal chairman of the Taibong Development Committee gave a statement which was annexed with the report reads as follows:- “I know Sri Maram Das Baishnab, S/o. Sri Balai Baishnab of Thaibong Village panchayat, west Jalefa P.O. Jalefa Bazar, Sabroom Subdivision, south Tripura for long time. Myself also permanent resident of that locality. Said person does not belongs to schedule cast because his predecessors are registered as Nath in the Panchayat. For this reason he cannot be schedule cast Yours faithfully Sd/- Ranjit Paul 26.02.90 Chairman Thaibong Development committee Sabroom T.D Block Tripura South” 19. Myself also permanent resident of that locality. Said person does not belongs to schedule cast because his predecessors are registered as Nath in the Panchayat. For this reason he cannot be schedule cast Yours faithfully Sd/- Ranjit Paul 26.02.90 Chairman Thaibong Development committee Sabroom T.D Block Tripura South” 19. The petitioner enclosed another letter of that Ranjit Pal dated 15.06.2010 which reads ad follows :- “I Shri Ranjit Paul son of Late Jamini Kumr Paul of village Thaibong, P.O. Jalefa Bazar, P.S. Sabroom Dist South Tripura, I am a permanent resident of that address for about 18 years, I have served Para-Melitari(BSF) Border Security Force and after retirement I came back and I was selected as Chairman of Development committee of Thaibong village Panchayet but although I was selected as Chairman of Panchayat Development Committee but maximum people were unknown to me. Without knowing details information on 26/12/1990 I have informed R.I of the then Sabroom Tahashil that – Shri Marandas Baishnab son of Late Balaram Baishnab village Thaibong P.O. Jalefa Bazar, P.S. Sabroom Dist South Tripura belongs to Nath Community which is not correct. Shri Marandas Baishnab belongs to schedule Caste Mahayshyadas Community this is true. I am recorded in Panchayat Register Yours faithfully SD/- Ranjit Paul 15/6/2010” That Ranjit Pal was never examined before the SLSC and his statement was not recorded. No other evidence placed on record to support the minutes of meeting of Schedule Caste Welfare Sub Committee or that of the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In my considered opinion the minutes of the meeting of Schedule Caste Welfare Sub-Committee dated 18.11.1999 in respect of the petitioner and the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom addressed to the Director of S.C. Welfare cannot form the basis of canceling the caste status certificate since no evidence in support thereof has been placed before the SLSC whereas the vigilance report which is according to the direction of the Apex Court and according to the provisions of the Rules clearly held that the petitioner belonged to scheduled caste community and the petitioner adduced oral and documentary evidence that he belonged to Mahishyadas community recognized as Scheduled Caste. I am of considered opinion that the SLSC has arrived at a wrong and illegal finding and hence in exercise of power of judicial review, to ensure justice, this Court should interfere in the decision and, accordingly, the order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by SLSC is interfered and quashed. 20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.