JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the State and Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 2. The present writ petition is filed assailing the speaking order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), whereby it is held that petitioner does not belong to Boro Kachari Tribe. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Salman Khurshid had extensively argued praying for an interim protection by staying the impugned speaking order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) with all further consequential action thereto. The learned Advocate General of Assam, Mr. D. Saikia, had also elaborately and extensively argued for rejection of such interim prayer. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel also supported such arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. 4. For the purpose of consideration of the interim prayer, the following necessary facts highlighted by the Learned Senior Counsels for the parties are recorded: i. On 17.10.2011, the petitioner was issued a certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes (Plains) being a Member of Boro Kachari community, recognized as Scheduled Tribes (Plains) under the Constitution of India (Schedule Tribe) Order 1950. Such certificate issued by All Assam Tribal Sangha, was countersigned by Sub Divisional Officer (C), Tamulpur. ii. The respondent No. 8, Sri Janaklal Basumatary challenged the election of the petitioner as Member of Parliament from a Parliamentary Constituency reserved for ST(P) on the ground that petitioner does not belong to ST (P) community. The respondent No. 8 also filed a writ petition in the Court in the year 2014 challenging such Certificate. The Election petition was dismissed by this Court and such decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The writ petition was closed being infructuous. Thereafter, the respondent No.8 filed a complaint before the Chairman, SLAC on 11.06.2019 with a prayer to cancel the certificate dated 17.10.2011 issued in favour of the petitioner. iii. On the basis of such a complaint, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT&BC requested the Director to enquire about the caste status of the petitioner through vigilance enquiry comittee. iv. iii. On the basis of such a complaint, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT&BC requested the Director to enquire about the caste status of the petitioner through vigilance enquiry comittee. iv. Thereafter, on 30.07.2019 one Jadu Ram Malakar, Vigilance Officer of the Vigilance Cell was asked to verify the caste certificate of three persons, including the petitioner. v. On 23.10.2019, the Vigilance Officer prepared an enquiry report and submitted the same before the Superintendent of CID and the Superintendent of Police, CID in turn submitted the report before the Director on 25.10.2019. vi. According to the said report, the petitioner is Sarania Kachari, and belongs to ST(P) in terms of a decision of the State whereby Sarania Kacharis were brought under the purview of the ST(P). vii. Thereafter, by a communication dated 25.10.2019, the Secretary to the Government of Assam WPT & BC Department requested the Deputy Commissioner, Baksa, Mushalpur to submit a caste status report of the petitioner taking into account the documents relating to his land and legacy data. Along with the said communication, the copy of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 8 Janaklal Basumatary was also forwarded. viii. Pursuant to the aforesaid request, the Deputy Commissioner submitted a report on 06.11.2019 to the effect that the father’s name of the petitioner was recorded as “Lakhi Sarukoch” in land documents and “Lakhi Kanta Sarukoch” in NRC related document. ix. The Annexure-15 reflects that on 06.11.2019, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Baksa also submitted a report to the DC that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was duly countersigned. x. It is seen from the record that another report regarding caste status was also submitted before the Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam by Inspector Jadu Ram Malakar on 06.02.2020 in reference to the communication dated 30.07.2019 and such report was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam before the Director of WPT&BC on 04.03.2020. xi. On the basis of such a report the Director WPT&BC by its communication 11.03.2020, asked the petitioner to show cause with regard to his certificate which was termed as doubtful ST(P) certificate. xii. Thereafter, citing certain reasons, including the lockdown during Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner requested for time to file reply, which was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner filed his reply on 31.08.2020. xiii. xii. Thereafter, citing certain reasons, including the lockdown during Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioner requested for time to file reply, which was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner filed his reply on 31.08.2020. xiii. The Directorate Level Vigilance Cell (Caste Certificate) committee in its meeting held on 14.09.2020 decided to refer the case of the petitioner to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for adjudication and personal hearing as requested by the petitioner. xiv. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a written submission before the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. xv. Thereafter, the SLSC decided to take views of the judicial department as regards the contention of the petitioner, more particularly as regards procedure of the SLSC for verification of the caste status in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil –vs- Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 . xvi. Thereafter, on 12.01.2024 impugned speaking order was passed holding that the petitioner does not belong to Boro Kachari community. 5. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues: I. The procedure that is required to be followed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) inasmuch as the procedure laid down in the office memorandum dated 11.05.2018 issued by the State of Assam in terms of the decision rendered in Madhuri Patil (supra) has totally been flouted inasmuch as without issuing any notice to the petitioner, a second enquiry was conducted, whereas, in the first vigilance enquiry, it was reported that the petitioner belongs to ST(P) category. The petitioner was not even examined by the vigilance officer. The impugned order also lacks reason. Therefore, on this count the determination made against the petitioner is liable to be struck down. II. The petitioner belongs to Boro Kachari Community and accordingly, the certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011 and the same has not been doubted for being fraudulent or being issued by an incompetent authority. III. Therefore, on this count the determination made against the petitioner is liable to be struck down. II. The petitioner belongs to Boro Kachari Community and accordingly, the certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011 and the same has not been doubted for being fraudulent or being issued by an incompetent authority. III. The fundamental ground for rejection of caste status of the petitioner is based on the surnames used by the father of the petitioner and also by the petitioner and thus the determination that Boro Kacharis do not use such surnames and therefore, the petitioner does not belong to Boro Kachari community, itself is based on no material and therefore perverse. There is also no determination that Boro Kacharis use certain surnames only and that status of Boro kachari as Tribal are determined on the basis of such surnames only. Such a course of action to doubt a caste certificate, is not permissible under law. Therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case. IV. In view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was issued a certificate by a competent authority, on the basis of which the petitioner was even elected as a Member of Parliament twice from a Reserved Constituency reserved for ST(P) candidates and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of such caste certificate, the prima facie case as well as balance of convenience is in his favour. The petitioner is going to contest the Parliamentary Election once again from the reserved category constituency, and therefore, in the event no interim order is passed, the petitioner will be deprived of such right and in the event the writ petition is allowed such deprivation cannot be compensated in terms of money. Accordingly, it is a fit case for grant of interim order. 6. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General of Assam while elaborately dealing with the Enquiry Report argues: I. The vigilance officer while dealing with the matter and enquiring into the matter strictly followed not only the mandate of Madhuri Patil, but also the mandate of the office memorandum dated 11.05.2018. The vigilance officer had visited the places as required, personally verified and collected all the facts of social status, not only of the petitioner but also of his mother and siblings. The vigilance officer had visited the places as required, personally verified and collected all the facts of social status, not only of the petitioner but also of his mother and siblings. The vigilance officer had also examined the school record of the petitioner, personally examined the siblings and mother of the petitioner, the Gaonburah’s and also verified the peculiar anthropological traits, rituals, mode of marriage etc. of the family of the petitioner and therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted with for relying on such report inasmuch as it is the mandate rendered in Madhuri Patil and provided in Officer memorandum dated 11.05.2018 that the SLSC is to base its decision on the vigilance enquiry report II. No second enquiry was conducted as urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the enquiry was done by the same officer on the basis of same reference and therefore, report dated 23.10.2019 cannot be treated as a final report not being prepared in terms of OM dtd.11.05.18. III. The vigilance committee has every power to continue with the enquiry proceeding till the same is done in terms of the office memorandum and in the case in hand, a bare perusal of the report dated 23.10.2019 shall reveal that the initial enquiry was not done in terms of the office memorandum inasmuch as the said enquiry was confined to grant of a certificate to Sarania Kachari people in terms of an office memorandum dated 05.06.2018. IV. Once the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Boro Kachari Tribe being negated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, extension of such benefit by an interim order would be running contrary to the principles laid down in Madhuri Patil. Therefore, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner when a caste scrutiny committee has already negated the claim of the petitioner to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. In support of such contention, learned Advocate General relies on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan –Vs- State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 9 SCC 804 . V. The vigilance officer has strictly conducted his enquiry in terms of the extant norms and the decision rendered in Madhuri Patil and the petitioner had duly participated in the proceeding. V. The vigilance officer has strictly conducted his enquiry in terms of the extant norms and the decision rendered in Madhuri Patil and the petitioner had duly participated in the proceeding. The vigilance committee and the SLSC had duly adhered to the procedure prescribed and therefore, the contention of the petitioner regarding the prima facie case is also liable to be rejected inasmuch as already a determination as prescribed under law has been made. VI. If the undue benefit is allowed to be enjoyed by the petitioner by virtue of an interim order, the same would rather cause irreparable loss and injury to the Boro Kachari community at large inasmuch as in the event the petitioner is elected as a member of parliament from a constituency reserved for ST(P) and in the event the writ petition is dismissed, the same will necessitate a fresh election at the cost of State exchequer and such loss cannot be compensated in terms of money and therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary power of granting interim order inasmuch as pursuant to the impugned order, the caste certificate of the petitioner has already been cancelled and such order of cancellation is not under challenged in this writ petition. 7. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the material available on record. 8. After enquiry, the vigilance enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner does not belong to ST (P) Community. The Enquiry officer reached his conclusion primarily on the following material: I. The parents and grandparents of the petitioner used different surnames such as Sarukoch, Das, Deka, Saru Das, which are not listed under Boro Kachari. I. Gaonburah stated that the family of the petitioner belongs to Koch Community and became Sarania after taking religious Saran. II. NRC data says that they used the surname Sarukoch and Land records show they used the surname Sarudas. III. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner were not Boro Kacharis and interchange of surnames by the family is another cause of concern. 9. II. NRC data says that they used the surname Sarukoch and Land records show they used the surname Sarudas. III. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner were not Boro Kacharis and interchange of surnames by the family is another cause of concern. 9. An office memorandum dated 11.05.2018 was issued under the signature of Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT&BC Department, in pursuance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Madhuri Patil, more particularly to create a vigilance cell at Directorate level and also for the purpose of laying down modality and procedure dealing with the manner relating to Fake Certificate. 10. It is mandated in Madhuri Patil as well as in the office memorandum dated 11.05.2018, that the Scrutiny Committee is to pass an appropriate order with brief reason in support thereof, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing including an opportunity to lead evidence. Such a mandate, in the opinion of this court, is founded on the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which requires that the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. A reason rationalizes an action. Such action can also be judged as well grounded in reason, if there are reasons for performing the action. It can also be assessed if reasons are briefly recorded. 11. In the case in hand, the impugned order clearly reveals that the SLSC has not given any reason for its determination not to say any brief reason in support of such order. There is no whisper or independent analysis, even brief, as regards the finding of the enquiry report, the contention raised by the petitioner and by the respondent No. 8. No reason not to say any brief reason has been recorded by the SLSC as regards its satisfaction to the findings of the enquiry report or the reason of rejection of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is suggestive of an order which lacks a vital mandate of “brief recording of reasons” to followed in terms the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Madhuri Patil and as provided in Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018. Therefore, the impugned order is suggestive of an order which lacks a vital mandate of “brief recording of reasons” to followed in terms the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in Madhuri Patil and as provided in Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the settled proposition of law that every state action must be supported by reason, more particularly when by such an action, a valuable right already granted is being taken away. 12. In Madhuri Patil, it is mandated that the Vigilance Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place of residence of the person concerned and the said officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts of social status claimed by the candidate or his parents or guardians, as the case may be. It was mandated that he should examine the school records, birth registration if any. He should also examine the parents, guardians or the candidate, as the case may be, in relation to their caste etc. or such other person 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, relating to their peculiar anthropological traits, rituals, customs, mode of marriage and death ceremonies, method of burial of dead body etc. Such procedure is also prescribed at paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018. 13. From the aforesaid, it is seen that an emphasis is being given both at paragraph 5 of Madhuri Patil as well as Paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018 that the Vigilance Officer should examine the candidate or the parents or guardian in relation to their claim. Such prescription of personal examination of the parents/guardians or the candidate, in the prima facie opinion of this court, is made for the reason that the Vigilance Enquiry officer should also have access to the material under possession and the claim of the candidate or his parents/guardians, whose caste status is being enquired. Such enquiry shall in turn facilitate the SLSC to come to a just conclusion. In the case in hand, the report of the vigilance officer reveals that the father of the petitioner had already expired, when the enquiry was conducted. Such enquiry shall in turn facilitate the SLSC to come to a just conclusion. In the case in hand, the report of the vigilance officer reveals that the father of the petitioner had already expired, when the enquiry was conducted. However, the vigilance officer did not examine the petitioner personally, though he is a major person and the inquiry relates to his Tribal status inasmuch as in case of a minor examination of his parents/guardian shall be sufficient. It is seen from the Report that there is no mention that the petitioner was personally examined by the vigilance officer or that the petitioner did not cooperate with the vigilance officer, though it is recorded that the enquiry officer had personally examined the petitioner’s mother, sister and Gaonburah. It is also a prima facie opinion, subject to final determination to be made, under the scheme of scrutiny of caste/tribe status, the petitioner shall have a right to explain his case/claim before the vigilance officer too, as such prescription shall give him an opportunity to place his claim during enquiry. However, as discussed hereinabove, his non examination is suggestive of violation of such right. 14. At paragraph-13.6 of Madhuri Patil, it was mandated that when a vigilance officer finds that the claim of social status is 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 giving an opportunity to file reply and personal hearing. It is also mandated that an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to the person concerned. After giving such opportunity, the Committee is to make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. Similar provision is prescribed at paragraph 4 of the office memorandum dated 11.05.2018. 15. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner reflects that it was intimated to the petitioner that he shall be given a chance to personal hearing, however, in the notice it was not intimated that the petitioner shall have a right to lay evidence personally or through an Advocate as mandated in Madhuri Patil. 15. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner reflects that it was intimated to the petitioner that he shall be given a chance to personal hearing, however, in the notice it was not intimated that the petitioner shall have a right to lay evidence personally or through an Advocate as mandated in Madhuri Patil. It is true that the petitioner has not claimed in his show cause reply that he be given a chance to lead evidence in support of his contention, however, the fact also remains that it was not intimated to the petitioner that there is a scope of leading evidence in the proceeding, to defend his social status. Such right is not only pivotal for a fair proceeding of determination of caste status under the mandate of Madhuri Patil and under the Scheme of Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018 but also is a valuable right given to a person whose caste status is being determined and such right, in the prima facie view of this Court, cannot lightly be taken away. Such course of action of non intimation of right of the petitioner is also suggestive of vitiating the proceeding. 16. Therefore, in the touchstone of the parameters laid down in Madhuri Patil and Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2018, this Court is of the prima facie that the petitioner has been able to make out a case of procedural lapse and violations of principles of natural justice. 17. A caste certificate is an acknowledgement to a person belonging to a community which has faced years of oppression. Such a document is an essential document for Scheduled persons. The petitioner was issued such a certificate in the year 2011, the complaint by the respondent was made in the year 2019 i.e. almost after 8 years after the certificate was issued. The proceeding of determination of caste status has been pending since the year 2019. In the meantime, the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of such a certificate. And therefore, in view of the preliminary opinion formed and recorded hereinabove, the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order and not in favour, either of the State or of the respondent No.8. 18. In the meantime, the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of such a certificate. And therefore, in view of the preliminary opinion formed and recorded hereinabove, the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order and not in favour, either of the State or of the respondent No.8. 18. It is true that order of cancellation of the caste certificate is not under challenged, however, such cancellation is a consequential action and therefore, when this Court has formed an opinion to stay the impugned action, the natural corollary thereof, is that all consequential action thereof shall also remain suspended. 19. Coming to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India –Vs- United Industrial Bank reported in 1983 (4) SCC 625 relied on by Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio that no temporary injunction can be granted where no case for permanent injunction is made out, shall not help the respondents in view of the determination made hereinabove. 20. Accordingly, it is provided that the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 and all consequential action thereof affecting the Tribe status of the petitioner, including order of cancellation of such certificate shall remain suspended till disposal of the writ petition. 21. While parting with the record, it is made clear that observations made herein are for the purpose of consideration of an interim order only and the same shall not influence the final determination to be made in the writ petition.