JUDGMENT Murahari Sri Raman, J. - The challenge made in the intra-Court appeal: This is an intra-Court appeal directed against Judgment dated 15.02.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12122 of 2022 in the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The fact as adumbrated by the appellant in the writ appeal: 2. The appellant (petitioner in the writ proceeding) claiming himself to be member of Schedule Caste community (pano), stated to have submitted application before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for issuance of a caste certificate in his favour for the purpose of employment. Similarly, his two sisters had also applied for issuance of caste certificates in their favour. The applications were registered as Misc. Caste Certificate Case Nos. e-CAS/996 of 2019, e-CAS/1691 of 2019 and e-CAS/1693 of 2019 (relating to the appellant). It is stated that applications were rejected by the Tahasildar on the ground that though the appellant/writ petitioner and his sisters belong to Scheduled Caste community, they profess Christianity. 2.1. Challenging such rejection, three appeals being Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case Nos.4/2019, 5/2019 and 6/2019 (relating to the appellant), were filed before the Collector/respondent No.2. While entertaining the appeals, direction was issued by the respondent No.2 for fresh enquiry in respect of three appeals, in pursuance of which enquiry, being conducted by the concerned Additional Sub-Collector (respondent No.4), report dated 22.07.2019 was submitted with an observation that the appellant though is pano by caste, but not Hindu by religion, considering the way of living, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, performances during death ceremonies and the method of burial of dead bodies of the family members. 2.2. It is alleged that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant. Though the presence of the appellant was marked during enquiry, no statement was recorded from him. This is apparent from the enquiry report as no statement of the appellant was enclosed to said enquiry report. 2.3. After submission of the enquiry report, COVID-19 restriction had commenced, as a result of which the case of the appellant could not be heard nor was status of the appeal was communicated to the appellant. However, after recession of COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the enquiry report dated 22.07.2019, the appellant had approached this Court by way of filing writ petition. 2.3. After submission of the enquiry report, COVID-19 restriction had commenced, as a result of which the case of the appellant could not be heard nor was status of the appeal was communicated to the appellant. However, after recession of COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the enquiry report dated 22.07.2019, the appellant had approached this Court by way of filing writ petition. The report of the Additional Sub-Collector was questioned specifically on the ground that the enquiry was conducted perfunctorily without following statutory provisions. It was alleged that the enquiry was conducted with bias and the authority had acted with mala fides. 2.4. Being noticed, the opposite parties entered appearance and participated in the writ proceeding by filing counter affidavit justifying the enquiry report. It is affirmed by the appellant that in the counter affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that the enquiry was duly conducted by observing all the formalities and without having any mala fide intention or bias. 2.5. It is brought to the notice that final order dated 28.08.2019 was passed by the respondent No.2 by rejecting Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6/2019 on the basis of contents contained in the enquiry report. It is stated that though the final order was passed much prior to filing of the writ petition, since the appellant was not aware about disposal of appeal, he challenged the enquiry report. 2.6. The appellant/petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit with certain documents in order to justify his contention that the enquiry was conducted improperly, and the report suffered latent lacunae. Therefore, such report could not have been accepted, which warrants quashment. 2.7. Feeling not satisfied with the Judgment dated 15.02.2024 of the learned Single Judge, in the writ appeal it has been contended that without appreciating the available materials, facts and evidence in support of the claim of the appellant, the writ petition has come to be dismissed. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been put to challenge that the erroneous finding rendered in the enquiry report could have been interdicted. Judgment of the learned Single Judge: 3. Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition vide Judgment dated 15.02.2024, assigned the following reason and dismissed the said writ petition: '5. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been put to challenge that the erroneous finding rendered in the enquiry report could have been interdicted. Judgment of the learned Single Judge: 3. Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition vide Judgment dated 15.02.2024, assigned the following reason and dismissed the said writ petition: '5. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, where a person claims to belong to SC or ST, it has to be verified whether he and his parents actually of the said community included in Presidential Order specifying SCs and STs in relation to the State of Orissa and that he should profess either Hindu or Sikh religion and in respect of a claim vis-a-vis ST, the person may profess any religion. As to the manner in which an enquiry has to be held, it has been brought to the notice of the Court about the letter dated 9th January, 2009 of the Government of Orissa in Revenue and Disaster Management Department which outlined the guidelines to be followed during such enquiry and therein, it has been clarified that the verification of Records of Rights may be done in case of persons having land, however, the field visit report should be prepared in the shape of a memorandum and while preparing it corroborative evidence of the castes of parentage along with their peculiar anthropological ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the caste or tribes or the tribal communities should find place therein besides the social status of the person would require verification as to the place he usually resides at or in case of migration, the place from which he originally hailed from. It is further stipulated that the field visit should incorporate the examination of parents, guardian and such other local persons having knowledge regarding the social status of the person. 6. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence as at Annexures-R/4 to R/ 7 to substantiate that the petitioner does not belong to Christian community though, a Pano by caste. The conclusion at the end of enquiry by opposite party No.4 is that the petitioner is a Pano but does not profess Hindu religion. 6. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence as at Annexures-R/4 to R/ 7 to substantiate that the petitioner does not belong to Christian community though, a Pano by caste. The conclusion at the end of enquiry by opposite party No.4 is that the petitioner is a Pano but does not profess Hindu religion. In course of enquiry, as revealed from Annexure-1, opposite party No.4 examined relations of the petitioner as well as locals known to his family and interacted with his other family members. One of the sisters of the petitioner as made to appear is married to her maternal uncle's son, who belongs to Christian community, the fact which has also been admitted. In course of such an enquiry, it is further revealed that the late father of the petitioner and his family belong to Pano caste but adopted Christianity. Interestingly, the enquiry also revealed that the dead bodies found to have been buried coffin which is unknown among the Hindu community. In fact, opposite party No.4 could not be satisfied as to why the dead body of the petitioner's father was buried. One Ananta Guru was examined who at the time of the enquiry was working as a peon in the office of the Sub Collector, Paralakhemundi and he claimed that in respect of the late father of the petitioner, funeral ceremony has been performed and further stated that in some of the villages under Rayagada Tahasil, dead bodies of Pano caste by Hindu religion are being buried, however, on being confronted by opposite party No.4, he could not substantiate the same by showing any such Hindu having been buried in coffin or laid to rest like a Christian. After examination of family members of the petitioners and marriages having taken place with families of Christian with such other evidence received, it created a doubt for opposite party No.4 to believe that any of them to profess Hindu religion. As most of the family members of the petitioner are married to Christians, the details of which have been mentioned in the report, the conclusion of opposite party No.4 was otherwise which is to the effect that the family may not be considered as Pano Hindu. As most of the family members of the petitioner are married to Christians, the details of which have been mentioned in the report, the conclusion of opposite party No.4 was otherwise which is to the effect that the family may not be considered as Pano Hindu. Each and every detail of the life style and regular practices followed by the petitioner's family has been brought on record by opposite party No.4 to suggest that the family is Pano by caste but not professing the Hindu religion. The aforesaid findings under Annexure-1 is sought to be challenged with the additional evidence referred to by Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner, which, in the considered view of the Court, would not be wise and proper to accept. When a detailed enquiry has been held and a conclusion is reached at that the petitioner though a Pano by caste but does not profess Hindu religion with a report received from opposite party No. 4 which has further led to decision a by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-A/2, the petitioner cannot be treated as a Schedule Caste. Admittedly, the demand is not for issuance of ST certificate. So, therefore, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and in view of sub-rule (4) thereof, the petitioner cannot be allowed to have an SC status in absence of clear and unimpeachable evidence to show that he professes Hindu religion when there has been material on record revealed through Annexure-1 to show that the family rather professed Christianity. In respect of any such claim that a Hindu Pano of the petitioner's community performs burial of dead bodies and not cremation, it could not be satisfactorily established during enquiry and when there has been evidence collected by opposite party No.4 to show that marriages have taken place with Christian families, it has to be held that the petitioner though Pano but is not a Hindu. In other words, the conclusion on the basis of Annexure-1 would be that the petitioner's family though claimed to be Pano Hindu but the same stood shrouded with suspicion and overwhelmed by evidence to suggest that Christian religion is being professed by them and the report on record cannot be discarded nor the later finding vide Annexure-A/2 is to be held as incorrect. When a serious doubt has been entertained by opposite party No.4, who himself visited the locations with a conclusion reached at, the Court does not find any compelling reasons to interfere with it. Furthermore, the allegation of mala fide is wholly inappropriate and thoroughly misconceived since opposite party No.4 did not have any axe to grind vis-a-vis the petitioner or the latter's family, which is again not substantiated by any evidence brought on record. ' Hearing of the writ appeal: 4. This matter was on board on 12.04.2024 under the heading 'Fresh Admission'. Counsel for the both sides conceded that this case can be disposed of at this stage as pleadings are completed before the writ Court and no further material need be placed. As the question which falls for consideration whether the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as the allegation of the appellant that during the enquiry conducted with respect to the caste of the appellant behind his back so that there has been violation of principles of natural justice, this Court took up the matter for hearing and heard Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate. The writ record: 5. Perusal of the writ petition, it appears disputed question of fact has been set up by the appellant by affirming that he is Hindu by religion and 'pano' by caste, as it is not mandatory to perform religious rituals and pooja for determination of the caste. 5.1. In the writ petition objection as to enquiry has been raised on the ground that the Additional Sub-Collector and the Tahasildar visited his house in the evening hours, as such the report submitted is 'false'. 5.2. As is revealed from the prayer(s) made in the writ petition, the appellant has sought to quash enquiry report dated 22.07.2019 of the Additional Sub-Collector which formed part of Mutation Appeal (CC) Case No. 6/2019 filed by the appellant before the Collector, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi. 6. Per contra, in the counter affidavit the opposite parties-respondents herein have made it clear that the appellant being native of Rayagada Tahasil of Gajapati district, applied before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for issue of Scheduled Caste Certificate, in connection of which the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Gajapati), directed the Revenue Inspector, Rayagada (Gajapati) to conduct inquiry and submit report. 6. Per contra, in the counter affidavit the opposite parties-respondents herein have made it clear that the appellant being native of Rayagada Tahasil of Gajapati district, applied before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for issue of Scheduled Caste Certificate, in connection of which the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Gajapati), directed the Revenue Inspector, Rayagada (Gajapati) to conduct inquiry and submit report. Pursuance thereto, the Revenue Inspector, Rayagada (Gajapati), after inquiry, submitted his report indicating therein that the applicant is 'pano' by caste and ' Christian' by religion and living life by observing Christian religious tradition and customs offering prayers at the Church and the appellant celebrates Christian functions, like Good Friday, etc. Considering the aforesaid report of Revenue Inspector Rayagada (Gajapati), the application of the appellant was rejected vide Order dated 30.05.2019 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Gajapati), which was subject matter of challenge in appeal under Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 before the Collector, Gajapati which was registered as Misc. Appeal (Caste Certificate) Case No.6/2019. 6.1. The Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi was directed by the Collector, Gajapati on 27.06.2019 to enquire into the matter and submit a detail report. In response to the said order the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi along with other officials enquired into the matter in detail and submitted a report dated 22.07.2019, eliciting the way of living, performance of rituals and customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies of the family members of the appellant. This report dated 22.07.2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 6.2. The Collector, Gajapati referring to such report came to the conclusion that the appellant is pano by caste, but not Hindu by religion, upon consideration of materials available on record and in view of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari. Madhuri Patil Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development , Government of Maharatra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1994, and consequently, he rejected the appeal vide Order dated 28.08.2019. 6.3. Madhuri Patil Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development , Government of Maharatra reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1994, and consequently, he rejected the appeal vide Order dated 28.08.2019. 6.3. Placing reliance on Rule 4 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 and the guidelines on detailed procedure for enquiry issued by the Government of Orissa in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Letter No.983/R&DM dated 09.01.2009, the deponent on behalf of the opposite parties contended that the appellant professed Christian religion and thereby the appellant was considered not to be issued with Scheduled Caste Certificate. 7. Supplementing the averments and contentions raised in the writ petition, the appellant filed reply to the counter affidavit by way of rejoinder affidavit by placing heavy reliance on the Record-of-Right issued in favour of his grandfather and mother, and urged that the Caste Certificate should have been issued accordingly. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties: 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Alok Kumar Panda, questioned the sanctity of the enquiry report, which is stated to have been challenged in the writ petition. It is alleged that proper procedure was not followed in conducting the enquiry. Statement of concerned persons being not recorded the enquiry cannot be said to be done in transparent manner. Without involving the petitioner in the course of the appellant, the counsel for the appellant went on argue that the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi visited the place Goura Chandra Sahi at 9.00 P.M. It is objected to by Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate that the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit disclosing that the appeal has been disposed of by passing final order by the Collector, Gajapati. 8.1. The learned counsel has submitted that notwithstanding the statements of the neighbours appended to the enquiry report, the appellate authority was pleased to reject the appeal by erroneously holding that the appellant is Christian by religion and thereby the determination that the appellant is pano by caste, but not professing Hindu religion is incorrect finding of fact. Enquiry report was submitted on assumption of erroneous facts. 9. Enquiry report was submitted on assumption of erroneous facts. 9. Sri Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate strenuously argued that the Collector, Gajapati having disposed of appeal by taking into consideration the enquiry report, it was not open for the appellant to question the veracity of such enquiry report in the writ proceeding without laying challenge to the appellate Order. It is incorrect statement of the counsel for the petition to say that the appellant was unaware of fact of disposal of appeal prior to filing of writ petition. 9.1. Next plank of argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate was that the Additional SubCollector having enquired into the matter threadbare and each relevant aspect has been thrashed out. As the report is supported by evidence on record and statements recorded during the course of enquiry, there was no scope to challenge said enquiry report. 9.2. Though it was found that the appellant is pano by caste, but since he is professing Christianity, he cannot be held to be Hindu by religion. Therefore, the appellate authority is correct in his approach by adhering to the contents of the enquiry report read with requirement of Rule 4 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980. 9.3. Since factual finding has been rendered by the authority concerned having taken into account the contents of the enquiry report, which was directed to be submitted during the course of appeal proceeding, there is hardly any scope for this Court to show indulgence by entertaining writ petition. The learned Single Judge has considered each of the contentions and is justified in dismissing the writ petition. Consideration of rival contentions and reasons for the decision: 10. At the outset it may be relevant to observe that in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.12122 of 2022 the appellant, as petitioner, sought for quashing of the Order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure-1 of writ petition). Having glance at said document it transpires that it is not an Order but an Enquiry Report, dated 22.07.2019 submitted by the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi in connection with 'Mutation Appeal (CC) Case No. 6/2019'. 10.1. Having glance at said document it transpires that it is not an Order but an Enquiry Report, dated 22.07.2019 submitted by the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi in connection with 'Mutation Appeal (CC) Case No. 6/2019'. 10.1. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition reveals the following: '*** the petitioner (is) challenging the Order dated 22.07.2019 vide Mutation Appeal (CC) Case No. 06/2019 passed by the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi (opposite party No. 4) which is illegal, arbitrary and injustice in the eye of law. ' 10.2. Reading of contents of the writ petition alongside the rejoinder affidavit it does not emanate that the appellant/petitioner has questioned the Order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Collector, Gajapati while disposing of appeal being Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6/2019 filed at the behest of the appellant. The document being Order dated 28.08.2019 of the Collector enclosed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A/2 (page 53 of the writ petition) stands to the testimony that the appellant-Ratan Ku. Paspureddy has himself acknowledged said Order in appeal to have received on 10.09.2019. Yet this Court finds no averment nor was prayer or any challenge being laid to the appellate order though the writ petition had been presented before this Court on 21.06.2022. 10.3. At paragraph 5 of the writ appeal the following explanation is furnished by the appellant: 'It is pertinent to state that though, the final order was passed much prior to the filing of the writ petition but since the appellant was not aware about such fact, he preferred the writ petition challenging the enquiry report. ' 10.4. Such fact as asserted by the appellant is found to be manifestly misdirected and misleading inasmuch as the copy of the Order in appeal passed by the Collector, Gajapati indicates service of said appellate order on 10.09.2019 (as acknowledged by Ratan Ku. Paspureddy). It is quite intriguing and surprising to notice that despite clear statement made in the appellate order that the appellant was heard during the course of hearing of appeal and that the appellant himself had acknowledged receipt of copy of order, such a misstatement could be made in the writ appeal at paragraph 5 stating that the appellant was unaware of final order being passed in the appeal. This Court deprecates such false statement being made by the appellant. 10.5. This Court deprecates such false statement being made by the appellant. 10.5. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with respect to requirement of correct disclosure of facts in order to be granted with relief sought for in the case of Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vrs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, (2010) 5 SCR 927 may be noteworthy. The said Court made the following observation: '15. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the Court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/ suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the Court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. In one of the earliest decisions on the subject i.e., R. Vrs. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486, Viscount Reading, Chief Justice of the Divisional Court observed: 'Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit. ' 16. The above extracted observations were approved by the Court of Appeal in the following words: 'It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction: and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any facts which he has omitted to bring forward. If an applicant does not act with uberrima fides and put every material fact before the Court it will not grant him an injunction, even though, there might be facts upon which the injunction might be granted. ' His Lordship rightly pronounced: The. Court, for its own protection, is entitled to say: We refuse this writ... without going into the merits of the case on the ground of the conduct of the applicant in bringing the case before us. ' Warrington, L.J. was also of the same opinion. In a concurring .judgment His Lordship observed: 'It is perfectly well settled that a person who makes an ex parte application to the Court- that is to say, in absence of the person who will be affected by that which the Court is asked to do- is under an obligation to the Court to make the fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge, and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, then he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings, and he will be deprived of any advantage he may have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him. ' *** 17. ' *** 17. This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance. State of Haryana Vrs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 431 , Vijay Kumar Kathuria Vrs. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 333 , Welcome Hotel and others Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc., (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by LRs. Vrs. Government of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 261 , S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vrs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs., (1994) 1 SCC 1 , Agricultural and Processed Food Products Vrs. Oswal Agro Furanes, (1996) 4 SCC 297 , Union of India Vrs. Muneesh Suneja, (2001) 3 SCC 92 , Prestige Lights Ltd. Vrs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Sunil Poddar Vrs. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2 SCC 326 , K.D. Sharma Vrs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayshree Vrs. Bhagwandas S. Patel, (2009) 3 SCC 141 and C.A. No. 5239/2002: Dalip Singh Vrs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.12.2009 = (2010) 2 SCC 114 . 18. In Hari Narain Vrs. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 , this Court revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making following observations: 'It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. ' 19. In Dalip Singh's case, the appellant's grievance was that before finalizing the case under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I960, the prescribed authority did not give notice to the tenure holder Shri Praveen Singh (predecessor of the appellant). On a scrutiny of the records, this Court found that the prescribed authority had issued notice to Shri Praveen Singh, which was duly served upon him and held that the appellant is not entitled to relief because he did not approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch, as he made a misleading statement in the writ petition giving an impression that the tenure holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority. The preface and paragraph 21 of that judgment read as under: 'For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 21. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that in this case efforts to mislead the authorities and the Courts have transmitted through, three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and this Court cannot, but be treated as reprehensible. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under challenge or entertain the appellant's prayer for setting aside the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.' ***' 10.6. In K.D. Sharma Vrs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 10 SCR 454 , it has been enunciated as follows: '2 6. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating Wie will not listen to your application because of what you have done'. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. 27. In R. Vrs. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. 27. In R. Vrs. General Income Tax Commissioners for Kensington, Ex Parle Polignac, (1917) 1 KB 486 = 86 LJ KB 257 = 116 LT 136 Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: 'Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit. ' 28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to dis close (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, 'the Court knows law but not facts'. 29. If the primary object as highlighted in R. Vrs. General Income Tax Commissioners for Kensington, Ex Parle Polignac, (1917) 1 KB 486 = 86 LJ KB 257 = 116 LT 136 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.' 10.7. It is pertinent to refer to Kishore Samrite Vrs. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398 , wherein it has been held as follows: '32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth, in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth., which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth. should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. Therefore, the truth. should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs. 33. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. A litigant is bound to make 'full and true disclosure of facts'. (Refer : Tilokchand H.B. Motichand Vrs. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 ; A. Shanmugam Vrs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, (2012) 6 SCC 430 ; Chandra Shashi Vrs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 ; Abhyudya Sanstha Vrs. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 145 ; State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 ; Kalyaneshwari Vrs. Union of India, (2011)3 SCC 287 ). 34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equifundamentals of judicious litigation. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 ; Kalyaneshwari Vrs. Union of India, (2011)3 SCC 287 ). 34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equifundamentals of judicious litigation. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of the Court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the Court with clean hands. *** 36. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) V.K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530 ).' 10.8 .In Vijay Syal Vrs. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court observed as follows: 'In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law Courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/ or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, when a Court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by Courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by Courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice. ' 10.9 . Except making evasive denial and raising objection as to the contents of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi, the appellant in his rejoinder affidavit dated 25.11.2022 has not commented about service of appellate Order dated 28.08.2019 of the Collector, Gajapati, copy of which was enclosed to the counter affidavit dated 01.11.2022 filed in connection with the writ petition by the opposite parties. Whereas the appellant has not denied the fact contained in the appellate Order that 'Heard the appellant', nothing has been put forth on record as to why the appellant did not raise any objection with respect to factual disputes raised in the writ petition. 10.10 . Notwithstanding such unclean approach tending to contumacious conduct of the appellant, and thereby he is not entitled to any relief, it may be expedient to address the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant vis-a-vis scope of entertainment of intra-Court appeal to meddle with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. 11. Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate for the appellant has merely advanced his arguments by questioning the veracity of enquiry report, but has not whispered anything with regard to impropriety of appellate Order passed by the Collector, Gajapati. He has also not placed any material to show as to why the appellant did not seek to challenge the Order of the Collector. To the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that the appellant is precluded from maintaining the writ petition inasmuch as the enquiry report merged with the passing of the order in appeal, there is no reply nor is any explanation proffered by the counsel for the appellant, save and except saying that in the counter affidavit stand is taken by the opposite parties to the effect that appellate order had already been passed. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that since no prayer nor was any challenge laid to the Order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Collector, Gajapati taking into consideration the contents of the enquiry report despite the fact that the appellant had acknowledged receipt of said Order on 10.09.2019, the writ petition, itself, was not maintainable. 12. The enquiry report contains the following fact: 'when I went to village Burujango to enquire into the matter, I saw that the house was locked. I came to know from the villagers that nobody is staying there since long. Being asked about the present place of residence, , back side of Paralakhemundi jail as their present place of residence the applicant Ratan Paspureddy gave me the address of Goura Chandra Sahi. But when I reached at the house at Goura Chandra Sahi at 9.00 P.M. on the same day I noticed that, the house was locked. I asked the neighbours about the applicants, but they told me that none of the family members of late Paspureddy are living there since long. When I called the applicant and insisted for their local address he said that now he is staying at Govindeswar lane, Gosaswer Chhak, Old Town, Bhubaneswar on rent along with his two sisters. During the enquiry I have also felt that the applicant Ratan Paspureddy is persistently trying to hide his address again and again. As none of the applicants are staying in their village or at Paralakhemundi address, it is very difficult to assess their way of living in a particular religion. The applicants had written his address in his own hand. ' 12.1. The sequence of enquiry as made reveals that the appellant does not reside at Goura Chandra Sahi at Paralakhemundi, but in Bhubaneswar. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that without involving the appellant the enquiry could not have been concluded is liable for rejection. 12.2. Such being position and the compelling circumstance which led the Additional Sub-Collector to proceed to enquiry at 9.00 P.M., the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the enquiry being conducted after office hours without 'involving the appellant' in the course of enquiry is only to be repelled. 13. 12.2. Such being position and the compelling circumstance which led the Additional Sub-Collector to proceed to enquiry at 9.00 P.M., the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the enquiry being conducted after office hours without 'involving the appellant' in the course of enquiry is only to be repelled. 13. It may be worthwhile to quote from the enquiry report which is to the following effect: '*** The family members of Late Nabin Paspureddy (father of the appellant, who was working as Tahasildar at R. Udayagiri Tahasil in the year 2001) and their marriage in Christian families also creates doubt about their culture and way of living in a particular religion. *** It seems from the marriage history of the family that most of the family members of late Paspureddy has been married in Christian families.' 13.1. As has already been extracted relevant portion of the impugned judgment of this Court while disposing of the writ petition herein above, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has taken pains to discuss pertinent material facts available on record in order to come to conclusion that the family of the appellant though claimed to be pano Hindu, the same stood shrouded with suspicion and overwhelmed by evidence to suggest that Christian religion is being professed by them and the enquiry report on record cannot be discarded nor can it be said that the appellate order (Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit) is incorrect. 13.2. Ex facie it is available on record, which is not disputed by Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate that the appellant has avoided to be present at the time of enquiry. The enquiry report goes on to record the fact that 'When I called the applicant and insisted for their local address he said that o he is staying at Govideswar Lane, Gosaswer Chhak, Old Town-Bhubaneswar on rent along with his two sisters. ... As none of the applicants are staying in their village or at Paralakhemundi address, it is very difficult to assess their way of living in a particular religion. ' 13.3. !t is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the following fact recorded in the enquiry report: 'The two married daughters are presently staying at Nabarangpalli Sahi, Paralakhemundi along with their family (in rented house) separately. ' 13.3. !t is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the following fact recorded in the enquiry report: 'The two married daughters are presently staying at Nabarangpalli Sahi, Paralakhemundi along with their family (in rented house) separately. The applicants (the unmarried son and daughters) are staying at Gobindeswar Lane, near Gosagareswar Chhak, Old Town-Bhubaneswar, PIN No.751002 in rented house, as told by one of the applicants, Sri Ratan Paspureddy.' 13.4. Hence, the observation of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with as the claim of the appellant with respect to pano by caste and professing Hindu religion is shrouded with suspicion. 13.5. It seems the appellant in order to gain certain advantage, has attempted to mislead and misrepresent the authority concerned. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, referred to Rule 4 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980, which deals with 'verification of caste' and provides for as follows: '4. Verification of caste.- Where a person claims to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe it should be verified- (1) that the person and his parents actually belong to the community claimed; (2) that the community is included in the Presidential Order specifying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Odisha; (3) that the person belongs is the State of Orissa and to the area in respect of which the community has been scheduled; (4) if a person claims to be a Scheduled Caste, he should profess either the Hindu or Sikh religion; (5) if a person claims to be a Scheduled Tribe, he may profess any religion. ' 13.6. It is, thus, pertinent to make observation that in order to claim to be member of Scheduled Caste community and desiring to obtain certificate under the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980, the person asserting has to discharge his onus by placing material to show that he professes either Hindu or Sikh religion. There is no cavil in saying that ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side. [See, Anil Rishi Vrs. [See, Anil Rishi Vrs. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558]. Undoubtedly, law assumes the apparent to be real and a person who asserts to the contrary has the burden to establish that the apparent does not represent the real state. 13.7. At this juncture, it may pertinent to take cognizance of the following fact as is reflected at paragraph 2 of the Order dated 28.08.2019 passed in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6/2019 by the Collector of Gajapati District: 'Perused the appeal memorandum along with the documents filed by the appellant also gone through, the LCR bearing No.e-CAS/1693/2019 received from the Tahasildar, Rayagada vide Letter No.1742, dated 13.08.2019. Heard the appellant, the Additional Tahasildar, Rayagada and the Government Pleader appeared for the respondent on the point of admission and merit of the case as well as at length. ' 13.8. From the above narration of fact recorded in the appellate order, it is transparent that opportunity has been afforded to the appellant to place relevant material, but nothing has been claimed to have put forth to contradict the material available on record and evidence relied on by the appellate authority-Collector, Gajapati. 13.9. This Court upon scrutiny of the enquiry report finds the following pertinent fact to be taken cognizance of: 'During my enquiry, I also came to know that after the death of Nabin Chandra Paspureddy, his dead body had been kept in a coffin and buried in the agriculture land of his maternal uncle who is pano Christian by caste. *** I came to know from the villagers that after the death of late Nabin Chandra Paspureddy, the dead body was brought to the village Burujango and kept in a coffin and buried. ***' 13.10. In the counter affidavit, as appended to the writ appeal, the opposite parties have justified to countenance the manner of conducting the enquiry: '12. The Government of Odisha, Revenue & Disaster Management Department in their Letter No.983/R&DM, dated 09.01.2009 has issued guidelines on detailed procedure for enquiry. The relevant portion is: '*** It is hereby clarified that verification of Records-of-Rights can be done in case of persons having land. However, field visit is mandatory before issuance of caste certificate. The field visit report should be prepared in shape of a memorandum of the officers who visited the field in presence of at least two witnesses along with the applicant or his representatives. However, field visit is mandatory before issuance of caste certificate. The field visit report should be prepared in shape of a memorandum of the officers who visited the field in presence of at least two witnesses along with the applicant or his representatives. While preparing the memorandum, corroborating evidence of castes of the parent guardian along with their peculiar anthropological ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial, of dead bodies etc. by the caste, or tribes or tribal communities should find place. The social status of candidates requires verification as to the place he usually resides at, or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The field visit should incorporate the examination of parent, guardian or the candidates or such other local persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidates. ***' 13. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the enquiry report dated 22.07.2019 was submitted by the opposite party No.4 (Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi) is based on the local enquiry in presence of the petitioner and other village gentries and documentary evidences collected/ recorded during enquiry. Basing on which he concluded that the way of living, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies of the family members of the Petitioner may not be considered as Pano-Hindu. ' 13.11. After analysing the evidence available on record the Collector, Gajapati came to the following conclusion: '6) The Additional Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi was directed to enquire into the matter and submit a detail report immediately vide this Court Order dated 27.06.2019 communicated to him with memo No.5201 dated 27.06.2019. The Additional SubCollector, Paralakhemundi has conducted detail enquiry along with the Tahasildar, Rayagada, Revenue Inspector, Rayagada and other revenue officials of Rayagada Tahasil. He has also conducted enquiry along with the District Welfare Officer, Gajapati in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Government of Maharastra (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1994). He submitted a common report dated 22.07.2019 along with enclosures in respect of Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.4/2019, 5/2019 and 6/2019 being the appellants in these three cases belong to one and the same family. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Government of Maharastra (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1994). He submitted a common report dated 22.07.2019 along with enclosures in respect of Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.4/2019, 5/2019 and 6/2019 being the appellants in these three cases belong to one and the same family. He has concluded on 14 points in the enquiry report that the way of living, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies of the family members of the applicants may not be considered as Pano-Hindu. 7) In view of above, I do not feel that the Tahasildar, Rayagada has made any error in rejecting the application of the appellant for issue of Caste Certificate for Employment purpose. Hence, the appeal is dis-allowed at the stage of admission. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Communicate extract of this order to the Tahasildar, Rayagada with the LCR received. Also communicate extract of this order to the appellant. ' 13.12. The appellant has acknowledged to have received said appellate Order as is seen from the foot of the copy of Order made part of writ petition enclosed to counter affidavit vide Annexure-A/2. The appellant, for the reason best known to him, has not questioned the appellate Order of the Collector, Gajapati in the writ proceeding, even though the same was served on him much prior to presentation of the writ petition. Having regard to the prayer made in the writ petition there is no ambiguity that the appellant has only challenged the enquiry report. In the writ appeal also the appellant has not raised any objection as to the appellate Order. During the course of hearing of writ appeal also Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner laid much stress to demolish the enquiry report, but never argued against the confirmation of the appellate order as made by the learned Single Judge in his Judgment dated 15.02.2024. 13.13. During the course of hearing of writ appeal also Sri Alok Kumar Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner laid much stress to demolish the enquiry report, but never argued against the confirmation of the appellate order as made by the learned Single Judge in his Judgment dated 15.02.2024. 13.13. Having regard to facts and circumstances as obtained in the record, this Court is of the considered view that Sri Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate is apt in his submission that upon the final Order in appeal being passed by the appellate authority having taken into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Sub-Collector during the course of the appeal, said report pales into insignificance to be questioned independently in writ proceeding in absence of any challenge made to the appellate Order. 13.14. This Court has gone through each ground taken by the appellant available in the Writ Appeal [Ground Nos.A to O], but does not find any averment nor ground challenging the appellate Order. The appellant is, it seems, not satisfied with the factual findings contained in the enquiry report and much stress has been laid during the course of the hearing of the writ appeal by the counsel for the appellant on the conduct of the enquiry at 9.00 P.M. Such objection per se would not vitiate the material collected during the enquiry inasmuch as the appellant has not disputed nor denied the fact that he had misguided the enquiring authority by furnishing different addresses. It is matter of record contained in the enquiry report that during the visit, the enquiring officer found the house at Goura Chandra Sahi (back side of Paralakhemundi Jail) locked, and upon ascertaining from the neighbours it could come to his knowledge that 'none of the family members of Late Paspureddy' resided there 'since long'. Therefore, the enquiring officer contacted the appellant and ascertained that the appellant resided in Bhubaneswar with his two sisters. Thus, he came to observe in the report that: 'During the enquiry I have also felt that, the applicant-Ratan Paspureddy is persistently trying to hide his address again and again. ' 13.15. Under the above premises, this Court finds that no good ground is made out by the appellant to question the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus, he came to observe in the report that: 'During the enquiry I have also felt that, the applicant-Ratan Paspureddy is persistently trying to hide his address again and again. ' 13.15. Under the above premises, this Court finds that no good ground is made out by the appellant to question the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact contained in the enquiry report to the effect that 'the conclusion at the end of enquiry by opposite party No.4 (Additional SubCollector, Paralakhemundi) is that the petitioner is pano but does not profess Hindu religion'. After making elaborate discussion, the learned Single Judge came to conclude that 'when a serious doubt has been entertained by the opposite party No.4, who himself visited the locations with a conclusion reached at, the Court does not find any compelling reasons to interfere with it'. 14. This Court, in the aforesaid emerging factual matrix, need not go into the details any further to upset the Judgment of the learned Single Judge delivered in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by dismissing the writ petition. It is not expected to re-appreciate evidence and substitute different view than what has been expressed by the learned Single Judge, while sitting in this jurisdiction of intra-Court appeal. 14.1. In Wander Ltd. Vrs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727 following is the observation: '14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate Court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vrs. Pothan Joseph, (I960) 3 SCR 713 = AIR 1960 SC 1156 : (SCR 721) '*** These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. Vrs. Jhanaton, 1942 AC 130: '*** the law as to the reversal by a Court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'. ***' 14.2. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal does not warrant interference in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the teeth of aforesaid enunciation of law. Conclusion & decision: 15. Given thus the legal perspective of scope of interference with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and having heard the submissions of the counsel for the respective parties, this Court has carefully scrutinised the documents enclosed to the brief as also perused the records of the writ petition. It is perceived that the appellant was unavailable during the course of enquiry at the address given to the authority concerned in respect of which his social status certificate was sought for. The Additional Sub-Collector was candid in his report by taking into consideration various material collated during the enquiry conducted in the village. The learned Single Judge has not remarked tinge of bias in the report; rather it is observed that the family members including the appellant was contacted by the Additional Sub-Collector. 16. The Additional Sub-Collector was candid in his report by taking into consideration various material collated during the enquiry conducted in the village. The learned Single Judge has not remarked tinge of bias in the report; rather it is observed that the family members including the appellant was contacted by the Additional Sub-Collector. 16. This apart, there is no explanation whatsoever is available on record as to why the appellant sought to question the veracity of enquiry report, which had already been taken into consideration while passing final order in appeal after hearing the appellant in appeal bearing Mise. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant-Ratan Kumar Paspureddy had signed at the foot of the appellate Order as a token of acknowledgment of receipt of copy of the same. 17. Evidence of Record-of-Right of the mother of the appellant has been cited in the writ petition to determine the caste. The said document available at page 40 of the writ appeal reveals that Sashikala Paspureddy wife of Late Nabin Chandra Paspureddy is 'pano' by caste. But it does not speak of 'religion' professed by the appellant or his mother. From the impugned Judgment dated 15.02.2024 it is manifest that the learned Single Judge had had regard to Rule 4 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980, which unequivocally stipulates inter alia that where a person claims to belong to Scheduled Caste, it should be verified that the person and his parents actually belong to the community claimed; and if a person claims to be a Scheduled Caste, he should profess either the Hindu or Sikh religion. Holistic view has been expressed by the authority concerned by taking into consideration the enquiry report and after hearing the appellant that the appellant is a 'pano' , but does not profess Hindu religion (see paragraph 6 of the impugned Judgment). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to take a different view, as the learned Single Judge has affirmed the factual aspect settled by the appellate authority-Collector, Gajapati after causing field enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to take a different view, as the learned Single Judge has affirmed the factual aspect settled by the appellate authority-Collector, Gajapati after causing field enquiry. This Court, therefore, refrains from differing with the finding returned by the learned Single Judge to the effect that 'Each and every detail of the life style and regular practices followed by the petitioner's family has been brought on record by opposite party No.4 to suggest that the family is pano by caste, but not professing the Hindu religion'. 17.1. This Court is not persuaded by the contentions raised and the grounds taken by the appellant to buttress his claim that 'samadhis have also been constructed by some of the Hindus which are found in each and every burial ground'. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has observed that 'any such claim that a Hindu pano of the petitioner's community performs burial of dead bodies and not cremation, it could not be satisfactorily established during enquiry and when there has been evidence collected by the opposite party No.4 to show that marriages have taken place with Christian families, it has to be held that the petitioner though pano, but is not a Hindu'. No illegality being found in such appreciation of fact on the basis of evidence available on record, this Court desists from substituting different view than that is taken by the learned Single Judge in his Judgment dated 15.02.2024 rendered in W.P.(C) No.12122 of 2022. 18. Since the learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the factual matrix with well-reasoned order, the decision rendered in W.P.(C) No.12122 of 2022 vide Judgment dated 15.02.2024 does not suffer infirmity in law so as to warrant interference in the intra-Court appeal filed under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-Ill and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Odisha, 1948. 19. Keeping abreast of the scope of intra-Court appeal as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the reasons stated above and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 15.02.2024 is perceived and, therefore, this Court declines to show indulgence in this writ appeal. 20. 19. Keeping abreast of the scope of intra-Court appeal as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the reasons stated above and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 15.02.2024 is perceived and, therefore, this Court declines to show indulgence in this writ appeal. 20. In the result, this writ appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.