JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-8 and Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.9-10. 2. The short question that falls for consideration in the writ petition is that the petitioner has filed several complaints to the State Level Scrutiny Committee alleging that respondents No.9 and 10 are the full blood brothers and are holding the post of the Joint Director in the Agriculture Department and Assistant Engineer under the department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (DWS) by virtue of their caste status. According to the petitioner, the respondents No.9 and 10 do not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, but somehow they have managed Scheduled Caste certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Agartala. 3. The grievance that now has been canvassed in this writ petition is that despite such complaint the State Level Scrutiny Committee is neither taking step not inquiring the said complaint following the procedure as declared by the apex court in the Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and Another reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 . 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has been given a special jurisdiction, beyond the power of the issuing authority, to carry out inquiry into the caste/tribe status and to find out whether the persons who are holding the SC/ST certificates do belong genuinely to such tribe or community or not. Be that as it may, according to Mr. Das, learned counsel the State Level Scrutiny Committee is not discharging their duty and on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner, no action has been taken, at least the petitioner has never been apprised of such action at all. 5. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-8 has stated that the complaint is under consideration of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and it shall invariably inquire into allegations made in the complaint following the due process. In view of the said statement made by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A., this writ petition is disposed with the following directions. 6. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-8 has stated that the complaint is under consideration of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and it shall invariably inquire into allegations made in the complaint following the due process. In view of the said statement made by Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A., this writ petition is disposed with the following directions. 6. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, the respondent No.5 shall investigate the complaint filed by the petitioner through the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) or by any other designated officer and will take action on the basis of the said report. It goes without saying that while investigating the caste status of the respondents No.9 and 10 the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) shall follow the directives given by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Laveti Giri (supra). When the vigilance report would be available to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the respondent No.5 is directed to supply a copy of the said report to the petitioner as the petitioner is interested in the outcome of the said inquiry. The said investigation by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) or any other designated competent officer shall be completed by the next 6(six) months. However, this court is not setting up any final time frame for completing the inquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-8 for onward transmission, particularly to the respondent No.5.