Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1261 (MP)

G. Usha Rajsekhar (Smt. ) v. Government of India

2020-12-05

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2020
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed I.A No.8273/2020. 2. It is prayed by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to extend the period of stay order granted by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2013 and pass appropriate order to the respondents, particularly respondent No.2, for not proceeding further with lodging of FIR in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the apex Court has clarified the order passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Misc. Application No.1577/2020) and held that stay order granted by any Court shall automatically expire within a period of six months unless extended. 3. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner to extend the stay order on the ground that it was beyond the domain of either Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar to conduct any enquiry into caste certificate and held it fake. Certificate of petitioner is to be scrutinized by scrutiny committee as per directives of apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner reported in [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 ]. 4. Counsel appearing for respondents opposed the application for extension of stay order. 5. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 6. The apex Court, in the order dated 15.10.2020 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. (supra), has held that “whatever stay has been granted by any Court including High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of first period of six months, to set a date for trial and go ahead with same.” 7. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Three-Judges Bench of apex Court presided by Hon’ble Justice Shri R.F. Nariman, it is to be seen whether there is any good reason for extending the stay order dated 1.4.2013. 8. Deputy Collector, Jabalpur vide its letter dated 7.6.2006, has informed Director Vigilance of Defence Ministry that caste certificate of petitioner is not found to be entered in Register, where record of issuance of caste certificate is entered. Investigation was done by Tahsildar to ascertain the fact whether caste certificate of petitioner was issued by concerned authority or not. 8. Deputy Collector, Jabalpur vide its letter dated 7.6.2006, has informed Director Vigilance of Defence Ministry that caste certificate of petitioner is not found to be entered in Register, where record of issuance of caste certificate is entered. Investigation was done by Tahsildar to ascertain the fact whether caste certificate of petitioner was issued by concerned authority or not. Tahsildar did not conduct enquiry adjudicating the claims of petitioner of belonging to a particular caste, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is not within the domain of Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar to enquire into caste certificate of petitioner and hold it fake. Caste certificate of petitioner was never issued by the Authority and same was counterfeited and forged document. In case of Madhuri Patil (supra), procedure was streamlined for issuance of social status certificates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, scrutiny of caste certificate and approval. Adjudicating the claims of a person whether he belonged to a particular caste or not is to be done by Scrutiny Committee as laid down in said case. However, whether a certificate is issued from the office of competent authority or not or from the office where a person claims it to be issued can be looked into by the In-charge person of that office. Such a verification of certificate cannot be said to be an enquiry regarding claims of petitioner. After issuance of letter dated 7.6.2006, petitioner did not submit any fresh certificate issued by Competent Authority before respondents. Nothing is available on record to show that petitioner has filed any application for issuance of fresh caste certificate. So no claim of petitioner is pending before Competent Authority or Scrutiny Committee for belonging to a particular caste. 9. In view of above, I do not find it a case for extension of stay order granted on 1.4.2013. I.A. 8273/2020, for extension of stay order is dismissed. 10. Registry to list the case at the next stage of hearing. Smt. Shobha Menon with Rahoul Choubey for petitioner; J.K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent.