Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 578 (JHR)

Lalji Ram Tiu v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-12

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to carry out the verification of caste certificate of Neela Nag (respondent no. 8) in terms with the notification issued by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand dated 08.07.2004. It has been further prayed for quashing the caste certificate of the respondent no. 8 being CST/0152 dated 08.03.2013 issued by the Block Development Office as also the caste certificate bearing no. 112 dated 04.02.2010 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa and all other caste certificates issued in pursuance thereof. 2. The factual background of the case as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition is that during the last Municipal Election, the respondent no. 8 chose to contest for the post of Chairman, Chaibasa Municipal Corporation and during that time, an objection was raised by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer, West Singhbhum Nagar Parishad, regarding the caste status of the respondent no. 8 alleging that she belongs to "Shandil" caste which is not in the list of Scheduled Tribe, however, the same was not acted upon. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Block Development Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, whereupon he was informed that the caste certificate of the respondent no. 8 was issued on the basis of lease papers and the enquiry report of the Karmchari. Since, no action was taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioner made a complaint dated 15.09.2015 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ranchi, Jharkhand regarding verification of caste certificate of the respondent no. 8. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of "Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development" reported in, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and submits that the caste certificate has been issued to the respondent no. 8 without following the guidelines enumerated in the said judgment. It is further submitted that the caste certificate is issued from the place where a person originally belongs or from where a person purchases the property. It is further submitted that a complaint petition was also filed by the respondent no. 8 without following the guidelines enumerated in the said judgment. It is further submitted that the caste certificate is issued from the place where a person originally belongs or from where a person purchases the property. It is further submitted that a complaint petition was also filed by the respondent no. 8 before the Chief judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa vide Complaint Case No. 02 of 2016, wherein she admitted that her caste was ''Shandil'' by birth which is a sub-caste of ''Tamaria'' and later on after marriage, she adopted her husband''s surname ''Nag'' and the caste certificate of ''Munda'' i.e., Scheduled Tribe has been issued to her on the basis of the family property of her father-in-law namely, Sukhdeo Nag. It is also submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is also sitting tight over the matter and as such, having no other recourse the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent - State submits that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is seized of the matter. The enquiry report called from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has not yet been received and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. The learned counsel for the State puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors." reported in, (2013) 4 SCC 465 and submits that only the person aggrieved by a caste certificate can challenge the same. It is further submitted that the determination of caste of a lady married to a tribal male (Munda) is to be governed by its customary law. The initial sufferance of social disability, backwardness, deprivation, indignities, humanities and handicaps suffered by the respondent no. 8 is to be determined first. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 submits that the present writ petition has been filed only to harass the respondent no. 8, who is an elected Mayor of Chaibasa Municipal Corporation, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand since 2013. It is further submitted that the certificate vide CST/0152 dated 08.03.2013, the letter no. 559 dated 04.10.1983 as well as in the certificates issued from the school, college and university clearly reveal that the respondent no. 8 belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Munda). 8, who is an elected Mayor of Chaibasa Municipal Corporation, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand since 2013. It is further submitted that the certificate vide CST/0152 dated 08.03.2013, the letter no. 559 dated 04.10.1983 as well as in the certificates issued from the school, college and university clearly reveal that the respondent no. 8 belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Munda). It is further submitted that no description of Sukhdeo Nag or Parmeshwar Nag has been given in the caste certificate dated 04.10.1983 and the same was issued only containing the description of the respondent no. 8 and her father namely, Laxman Ram ''Shandil''. It is further submitted that the caste of the respondent no. 8 and her husband fall under category ''Munda'' as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The caste certificate of respondent no. 8 by birth as well after marriage is the same and it is wrong to allege that she has acquired the ''Munda'' caste after her marriage. It is further submitted that the list nowhere shows that ''Shandil'' belongs to backward class such as ''Tamaria'', rather ''Shandil'' is the sub-caste of ''Munda''. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The case of the petitioner is that by birth, the respondent no. 8 belongs to ''Shandil'' caste which is the sub-caste of ''Tamaria'' and after marriage with a ''Munda'' male, she has obtained the caste certificate of ''Munda'' on the basis of the documents of her father-in-law. On the contrary, the respondent no. 8 has refuted the contention of the petitioner claiming that she belongs to ''Munda'' community by birth and actually ''Shandil'' is the sub-caste of ''Munda''. Considering the rival contentions of the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 and in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of "Madhuri Patil" (supra), any dispute with regard to caste of a person is to be adjudicated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the manner as has been laid down in the judgment. It appears from the record that the petitioner has already raised the dispute regarding the caste of the respondent no. 8 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the enquiry report is still awaited. Thus, it is not appropriate to make any observation regarding the caste status of the petitioner in the writ proceeding. 7. It appears from the record that the petitioner has already raised the dispute regarding the caste of the respondent no. 8 before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the enquiry report is still awaited. Thus, it is not appropriate to make any observation regarding the caste status of the petitioner in the writ proceeding. 7. Moreover, in the judgment rendered in the case of "Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while considering as to who could be the aggrieved person against alleged issuance of a wrong caste certificate to a person, has held as under:- "9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B., Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. v. S.C. Sekar.]" 8. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B., Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. v. S.C. Sekar.]" 8. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he/she satisfies the authority/court that he/she falls within the category of aggrieved person. In the present case, the petitioner has not contested the Municipal Corporation election in which the respondent no. 8 has been elected as Mayor of Chaibasa Municipal Corporation. Nevertheless, the petitioner has filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent no. 8 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, which is still pending. Further, the State Caste Scrutiny Committee is also seized of the issue. 9. Thus, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may pursue the election petition filed by him as well as the matter pending before the State Caste Scrutiny Committee. The issue regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the caste certificate(s) of the respondent no. 8 is left open to be decided in the aforesaid proceedings.