Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 199 (UTT)

Ruby Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-05-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others: “Issue a writ, or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 26.03.2016 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the caste certificate has been denied to the petitioner (contained as Annexure No. 4 to this Writ Petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 to issue caste certificate to the petitioner treating the petitioner bona fide resident of Uttarakhand State within such time which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in compliance of judgment of this Hon’ble Court as passed in WPMS No. 124 of 2011 dated 17.08.2012. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 to issue caste certificate to the petitioner treating the petitioner bona fide resident of Uttarakhand State within such time which this Hon’ble Court deem fit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the controversy in hand has been resolved by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17th August, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 124 of 2011 (M/S) & other connected writ petitions. The following order was passed in the said writ petitions: “76. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with a direction to the State authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment in the light of the observations made above, which is required to be read in the Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004 and 22.06.20006. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of with a direction to the State authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment in the light of the observations made above, which is required to be read in the Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004 and 22.06.20006. In order to streamline the procedure for the issuance of the caste certificate, the State Government is also directed to issue a Government Order/Clarification for issuance of a caste certificate in the light of the observations made above within two months from today.” It will be appropriate to quote para 9 of the writ petition for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition, which reads as follows: “That thereafter the father of the petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar filed WPMS No. 124 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court in which an interim order was passed and direction was issued for issuance of provisional certificate and thus the sister of petitioner, namely, Pooja Chaudhary was also denied certificate and thus she also filed WPMS No. 1138 of 2011 and thus the both the writ petitions were allowed and it has been held that in case the person of erstwhile State of U.P. in case residing permanently on 09.11.2000 within the State of Uttarakhand and direction was issued for issuance of Govt. Order in this respect, as such the said judgment was upheld by all the courts. A true copy of judgment dated 17.08.2012 is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition.” Whereas petitioner in Writ petition No. 124 of 2011 (M/S) is father of writ petitioner, petitioner Ruby Chaudhary, who filed WPMS No. 1138 of 2011, is real sister of the present petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents brought on record including the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Present writ petition, therefore, meets the same fate as was met by WPMS No. 124 of 2011, WPMS No. 1138 of 2011 and the connected writ petitions. Present writ petition, therefore, meets the same fate as was met by WPMS No. 124 of 2011, WPMS No. 1138 of 2011 and the connected writ petitions. Present Writ petition (No. 1184 of 2016) is, accordingly, allowed and is disposed of with the direction to the State authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment in the light of the observations made in WPMS No. 124 of 2011, WPMS No. 1138 of 2011 and the connected writ petitions, which is required to be read in the Government Orders dated 29.03.2003, 16.02.2004 and 22.06.2006. Since the writ petition is being decided without opportunity to the State Government to file the counter affidavit, therefore, the respondent-State is at liberty to move for recall of this order, if they feel aggrieved with the same.