Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 4 (MP)

Sudha Bairagi (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2024-01-02

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 19.9.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing W. P. No.1147 of 2017, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. Challenge in the writ petition was made to order dated 10.1.2017 passed by respondent No.4 and order dated 6.12.2016 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was born on 15.6.1963 at Mandla. In the year 1978, she was adopted as a daughter by her Uncle who is residing at Rewa. In the year 1995, she was appointed in District Van Upaj Sahkari Union Office, Mandla (West) on the post of Sandesh Vahak under reserved category. A criminal complaint was got registered against her for offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC on the allegation that she has obtained a forged caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe while she is residing at Mandla wherein 'Panika' community does not come under the category of Scheduled Tribe. The matter was referred to the High Power Scrutiny Committee on 22.12.2012. A show cause notice dated 26.3.2013 was issued to the petitioner to which on 11.4.2013 a comprehensive reply was filed by her. The matter was kept pending for a considerable time and on 13.7.2016 her appearance was sought before the Committee. On her request the case was adjourned and the next date was given. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and after granting the opportunity of hearing to her, the High Power Scrutiny Committee passed a detailed order on 6.12.2016 recording a finding that the petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Tribe Community as 'Panika' community does not fall under the category of Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was liable to be cancelled. On the basis of the report of the High Power Scrutiny Committee, the impugned order dated 10.1.2017 was passed. 4. It is her case that the entire proceedings have been initiated at the behest of the Superintendent of Police. No procedure has been followed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee as provided in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241 and State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (2001) 1 SCC 4 . No procedure has been followed by the High Power Scrutiny Committee as provided in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241 and State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (2001) 1 SCC 4 . Several documents were filed by the petitioner to show that she was residing at Rewa with her Uncle as she was adopted in the year 1978. Copy of the adoption deed was also placed before authorities but the same was not properly considered. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition without taking note of the documents which have been filed by the petitioner. The arguments that the proper procedure as contemplated in the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra) has not been followed by the authorities. The said aspect has not been considered by the writ Court. Therefore, the writ appeal has been filed. 5. Counsel appearing for the State has produced the original record of the High Power Scrutiny Committee. It is contended by him that the so called adoption deed which has been filed to demonstrate that she was adopted and residing at Rewa, was itself not accepted as the same was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and the same is not a registered document. The other aspect is that as per the petitioner, if she was residing with her Uncle at Rewa, then it was highly questionable that why she has passed her 12th Class Examination from Rani Ramgarh Girls Higher Secondary School Mandla, as a private student. There was no answer to the aforesaid proposition by the counsel. There was no dispute with respect to 'Panika' caste being not a Scheduled Tribe in Mandla District. Therefore, just to take advantage of the Scheduled Tribe Community, a so called adoption deed was prepared. The authorities have done a detailed enquiry into the matter. Notices have been issued to the petitioner to which she has responded and her personal appearance was also sought for. Therefore, the entire procedure as provided in the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra) has been followed by the authorities. The entire burden was on the petitioner to satisfy the very basis i.e. the adoption deed was a genuine adoption deed. But she failed to do so. Therefore, the entire procedure as provided in the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra) has been followed by the authorities. The entire burden was on the petitioner to satisfy the very basis i.e. the adoption deed was a genuine adoption deed. But she failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding the inquiry as well as the impugned order to be just and proper. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. The sole question before this Court is whether the inquiry conducted by the High Power Scrutiny Committee is just and proper. The record of the High Power Scrutiny Committee is placed before this Court. The record indicates that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the authorities. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner asking her participation in the enquiry. Admittedly, she has submitted reply to the show-cause notices. The caste certificated dated 13.1.1990 was issued under the signatures of the Naib Tehsildar. The domicile certificate of the petitioner shows her to be a resident of District Mandla. The adoption deed dated 30.12.1978 is written on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The adoption deed is not proved and is an unregistered document. The entire burden was on petitioner to establish that the adoption deed was valid. The documents regarding education were placed on record from which it is reflected that she passed her 12th class certificate examination from Rani Ramgarh Girls Higher Secondary School Mandla. It is also reflected from the record that notices dated 26.3.2013, 19.7.2016 and 26.11.2016 were issued to the petitioner directing for her personal appearance. All these notices clearly reflect the address of Housing Board Colony, Mandla District Mandla. The notices were received under the signatures of the petitioner. This again goes to show that the petitioner was residing at Mandla. 8. The petitioner has duly submitted reply to the show cause notices. One of the reply dated 5.12.2016 shows her address as Housing Board Colony, Lalipur District Mandla. This again reflects that the petitioner was residing at Mandla. The High Power Scrutiny Committee has taken note of all the aforesaid facts of the case and adoption deed which was prepared being an unregistered document is not admissible until and unless the same is being declared valid by the competent court. This again reflects that the petitioner was residing at Mandla. The High Power Scrutiny Committee has taken note of all the aforesaid facts of the case and adoption deed which was prepared being an unregistered document is not admissible until and unless the same is being declared valid by the competent court. The entire burden of proving it is on the petitioner coupled with the fact that all the documents which are placed along with the response to the show cause notices filed by the petitioner contain the address of Mandla. Petitioner failed to establish and explain that once she was residing at Rewa with her Uncle as she had been adopted by him in the year 1978 then how she has passed her 12th class examination from a private school in Mandla and not from Rewa. No other documents were placed by the petitioner before the High Power Scrutiny Committee. 9. Under these circumstances, the High Power Scrutiny Committee has rightly arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner is a resident of Mandla and just to take advantage of the Scheduled Tribe Community, an adoption deed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper had been prepared. The scrutiny committee was formed in terms of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). The Scrutiny Committee is the expert body to look into the validity of the caste certificate. The Court under the supervisory jurisdiction cannot go into the validity of the caste certificate. It is only required to see that whether the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is just and proper. 10. In the present case all the parameters were followed by the scrutiny committee. It is not a case where opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. 11. Under these circumstances, interfering in the enquiry report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee will amount to looking into the entire evidence and passing an order. This court cannot sit as an appellate authority to the enquiry report submitted by the Scrutiny Committee and re-appreciate the entire evidence. It is only required to see whether the proper procedure was adopted by the Scrutiny Committee. The writ court considered all the aspects of the matter and this court has also perused the record produced by the counsel for the State. 12. It is only required to see whether the proper procedure was adopted by the Scrutiny Committee. The writ court considered all the aspects of the matter and this court has also perused the record produced by the counsel for the State. 12. Under these circumstances, no illegality is found to be committed by the Scrutiny Committee or by the writ Court in passing the impugned order. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the writ petitioner. 13. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.