Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (herein after to be referred to as the “Act, 2013” for brevity) read with notification dated 22.08.2013, by which the petitioners’ caste certificate has been invalidated/revoked. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as ‘Peon’ in the office of the Advocate General on 18.07.2005 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Scrutiny Committee on 04.07.2014 (Annexure P/12), to which he submitted his response on 21.07.2014 (Annexure P/13). Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of a Chairman and two members nominated by the Director/Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Raipur, whereby the petitioner’s caste certificate was revoked and it was held that the petitioner is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013, however, the Vice Chairman - Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the Member Secretary - Commissioner/Director, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur both were not present in the meeting, as such, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee was not duly constituted and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the said Committee is liable to be set aside. 2.3 Return has been filed by the State supporting the impugned order stating that three members consisting of the Chairman and two Members/Deputy Directors nominated by the competent authority as per notification dated 22.08.2013 read with Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013, were already present in the meeting, as such, the impugned order revoking the petitioner’s caste certificate has been passed by the duly constituted High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the Scrutiny Committee was constituted in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013 and vested with power to exercise jurisdiction under the Act, 2013 and since the revocation of the caste certificate has drastic civil consequences upon the status of the petitioner, therefore, it ought to have been exercised by the duly constituted Scrutiny Committee. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramchandra Keshav Adke And Ors v. Govind Joti Chavare And Ors ., 1975 (1) SCC 559 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when power is given to a certain thing in a certain way, then it has to be done in that way or it cannot be done at all in the other way and failure to comply with would vitiate the proceeding from the beginning. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground only. 4. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner had participated in the entire proceeding and did not raise any objection in that regard right in time and, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order impugned deserves to be upheld. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others , (1994) 6 SCC 241 , in order to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, has directed all the State Governments to constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 7. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 7. Thereafter, the Act of 2013 was enacted to protect the interest of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State from those who fraudulently obtain false Social Status Certification, certifying that the person belongs to these sections of populations, which came into force with effect from 29-4- 2013. Section 7 of the Act of 2013 provides for constitution of High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, which states that the State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in the matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of the Act, and it shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. However, Section 8 of the Act of 2013 provides for cancellation and confiscation of false Social Status Certificate, which states that if after enquiry under Section 7 of the Act, High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that, the social status certificate was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, it shall, by an order in writing, cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as may be prescribed. As such, cancellation or confiscation of a Social Status Certificate has drastic civil consequences upon the status of the person whose caste certificate is in question. 8. As such, cancellation or confiscation of a Social Status Certificate has drastic civil consequences upon the status of the person whose caste certificate is in question. 8. In exercise of the power under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2013, the State Government has constituted the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, as under, by Notification dated 22.8.2013 :- dz- Lkfefr esa ukekafdr vf/kdkjhx.k v/;{k@lnL; 1- i zeq[k lfpo@lfpo] NRrhlx<+ ’kklu] vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx v/;{k 2- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k l LFkku] N-x-] jk;iqj mik/;{k 3- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx] N-x-] jk;iqj LknL; lfpo 4- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k laLFkku] jk;iqj }kjk vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k laLFkku esa inLFk la;qDr lapkyd@mi lapkyd@mi lapkyd@lgk;d lapkyd@vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh@lgk;d vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh esa ls] ukekafdr nks vf/kdkjh LknL; 9. As such, by virtue of notification dated 22.08.2013, if a Social Status Certificate is questioned, it has to be considered by the committee so constituted that is a five multi-member committee consisting of (1) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development being Chairman; (2) Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Vice-Chairman; (3) Commissioner/ Director, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Member Secretary; and (4) two Officers amongst Joint Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/Research Officer/ Assistant Research Officer posted in Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, nominated by Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, being Members. 10. It is apparent that the Scrutiny Committee, which has passed the impugned order, only consisted of the Chairman and the two members/Deputy Directors and the Vice Chairman and the Member Secretary were not present as such, the Scrutiny Committee in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013 was not duly constituted. It is a well settled law that when power is given to a certain thing in a certain way, it has to be done in that way alone or it cannot be done at all in the other way and failure to comply with would vitiate the proceeding from the beginning and decision such rendered would be void. (See: Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra)). 11. (See: Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra)). 11. Moreover, the object of the constitution of the five multi-member committee has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary and another v. Mahendra Gupta and others , (2018) 3 SCC 635 and it has been held that the multi-member body transacts its business after debate, consultation and discussion, and it has been observed in paragraph 15 as under: - "15. The multi-member body transacts its business after debate, consultation and discussion. The view of multi-member body is expressed unanimously or by votes. For various kind of decisions by multi-member body special majorities are also provided for acceptance of the decision. Normally, all decisions of a multi-member body are expressed by opinion of majority of the members present except where the special majorities are provided in the statute itself." 12. Similarly, in the matter of S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India and others , (1991) 3 SCC 567 it has been held that there is no doubt that two heads are better than one, but it is both necessary and desirable that the powers are not exercised by one individual, however, all-wise he may be and observed as under: - "26. There is no doubt that two heads are better than one, and particularly when an institution like the Election Commission is entrusted with vital functions, and is armed with exclusive uncontrolled powers to execute them, it is both necessary and desirable that the powers are not exercised by one individual, however, all-wise he may be. It ill- conforms the tenets of the democratic rule. It is true that the independence of an institution depends upon the persons who man it and not on their number. A single individual may sometimes prove capable of withstanding all the pulls and pressures, which many may not. However, when vast powers are exercised by an institution which is accountable to none, it is politic to entrust its affairs to more hands than one. It helps to assure judiciousness and want of arbitrariness. The fact, however, remains that where more individuals than one, man an institution, their roles have to be clearly defined, if the functioning of the institution is not to come to a naught." 13. Similarly, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. It helps to assure judiciousness and want of arbitrariness. The fact, however, remains that where more individuals than one, man an institution, their roles have to be clearly defined, if the functioning of the institution is not to come to a naught." 13. Similarly, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. Mohanjit Singh , 1988 (Supp) SCC 562 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that when the presence of a particular member of a Selection Committee is regarded as essential for completing the quoram, then the absence of that member in the Selection Committee could render the selection invalid notwithstanding ex-post facto ratification by that member and observed in para 3 as under :- “3. ...The government order being clear as to the constitution of the committee to function as the selection body, in the absence of the representative of the Director of Higher Education, it cannot be said that there was a proper selection committee constituted on the date when respondent 1 was selected. Ratification by the District Education Officer at a later point of time cannot validate the proceedings of the selection committee as there was no quorum and in its absence, the committee was not entitled to transact business. The government order makes it clear that the selection committee is intended to function as a body. In case all the members were present at the selection there would have been scope for exchange of views when the candidates appeared and the selection would have been in terms of the scheme. Once a decision is taken and the absentee member is called upon to ratify the conclusion already reached, it becomes a very different type of activity. We are. therefore, not prepared to accept the decision of the Administrative Tribunal on principle that the subsequent ratification constituted valid selection.” 14. Once a decision is taken and the absentee member is called upon to ratify the conclusion already reached, it becomes a very different type of activity. We are. therefore, not prepared to accept the decision of the Administrative Tribunal on principle that the subsequent ratification constituted valid selection.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is quite vivid that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is constituted under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013, which is a five member committee and comprises (1) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development being Chairman; (2) Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Vice-Chairman; (3) Commissioner/Director, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Member Secretary; and (4) two Officers amongst Joint Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/ Research Officer/ Assistant Research Officer posted in Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, nominated by the Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, being the Members. Admittedly, only three members i.e. the Chairman and the two members nominated by the Director of the said training institute were present whereas, the Vice-Chairman and the Member Secretary both were not present, as such, the Scrutiny Committee was not duly constituted. The very object of the multi-member Committee is to give the scope for exchange of views while considering the status of a government servant and as wide power has been conferred to the Committee to consider and verify the caste status of a person whose caste certificate has been declared invalid and which has serious and drastic civil consequences upon that person and, therefore, the Committee has to be duly constituted comprising of five members and there is no such clause exempting that in certain situations there can be less than five members in the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013. 15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the duly constituted Committee to consider and pass order afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, as the matter is pending for ten years. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).