Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4069 OF 2008
Collector, Bilaspur .........Appellant
Vs.
Ajit P. K. Jogi & Ors. .......Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal No.4074 of 2008
Civil Appeal No.4079 of 2008
Civil Appeal No.4082 of 2008
J U D G M E N T
R. V. Raveendran J.
These four appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment
dated 15.12.2006 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011.
As the ranks of parties differ, they are referred to by their ranks in CA
No.4069/2008.
2
2. The first respondent (Ajit P.K. Jogi) claimed that he belonged to a
tribal community known as `Kanwar’, a notified Scheduled Tribe. He
obtained social status/caste certificates from time to time, showing him as
belonging to Kanwar-Scheduled Tribe, that is, certificate dated 6.6.1967
from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984
by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by
the Tehsildar, Pendra Road, certificate dated 12.1.1993 by the Naib
Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 11.8.1999 by Naib
Tehsildar, Indore, certificate dated 8.1.2001 from the Addl. Collector,
Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addl. Collector, Bilaspur. The
first respondent was elected twice to Rajya Sabha and contested two
parliamentary elections from Raigarh and Shahdol constituencies. He
successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved
for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh
came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and
served in that capacity till December, 2002.
3. In the year 2001, the sixth respondent filed a complaint before the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the third
respondent herein, for short `Commission’) alleging that the first respondent
3
was a Christian and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he
had obtained several false caste certificates showing him as belonging to
`Kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a constituency
reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He requested that appropriate action be taken
in that behalf.
4. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the first respondent
proposing to verify his caste certificate. The Commission referred the
complaint received from the sixth respondent to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Chhattisgarh on 29.1.2001. The state government (fourth
respondent) responded to the Commission stating that it had constituted a
committee dated 27.2.2001 for verification of caste certificates and the
reference received from the Commission had been transmitted to the
Principal Secretary, Department for Welfare of SCs, STs, OBCs and
Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent) for necessary verification through the
said Committee. The Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary
of Chhattisgarh to appear before the Commission on 24.1.2001 with all
documents relating to the caste status of the Chief Minister (first
respondent). The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department to appear on 18.5.2011
4
with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by
the state government relating to verification of caste certificates. He
submitted that having regard to the provision made by the state government
for verification of caste certificate by a scrutiny committee, the Commission
did not have jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate issued to the first
respondent. The Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from
the Government of Chhattisgarh and instructed its branch at Bhopal to
ascertain the correct position and verify the caste claim of the first
respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected some material to show
that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste (a backward class) and
that he did not belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as
a MLA from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on a false
caste certificate. On the basis of alleged material so collected, the
Commission called upon the first respondent, vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to
offer his explanation and also appear before the Commission on 30.9.2001
with necessary documents. One Mr. R. N. Sharma, Chief Legal Adviser to
the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh appeared on behalf of the first respondent
and submitted a reply dated 12.9.2001 to the notice dated 26.5.2001. Several
documents were furnished and written submissions were also filed.
5
5. The Commission made an order dated 16.10.2001. We extract below
the preamble and operative portion of the said order :
“In the matter of : Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.
Jogi, S/o Shri K.P. Jogi, Village Sarbahra, Tehsil
Pendra Road, District Bilaspur.
xxxxx xxxxxx
Taking into consideration the available evidence as discussed above, the
commission is of the considered view that Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi has been
fraudulently claiming to belong to Kanwar community for the purpose of
getting ST certificate, although he and his ancestors belong to Satnami
caste, which is included in the SC list of the State. However, as Shri Ajit
P.K. Jogi’s grandfather appears to have got converted to Christianity, he
was not eligible for concessions/benefits available to SCs also. The state
government is, therefore, called upon to conduct the verification of
genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by Shri APK Jogi and to initiate
urgent necessary action for cancellation of his ST certificate and also
criminal action as provided in the law and the rules. A report on the action
taken may be submitted to the Commission within 30 days.”
6. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by filing WP
No.2080 of 2001 in the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Division Bench of the
High Court by the impugned order dated 15.12.2006 allowed the writ
petition. It held that the complaint of the sixth respondent before the
Commission questioning the social status of first respondent was politically
motivated, that the first respondent had been openly claiming the status of a
person belonging to a scheduled tribe, at least from the year 1967 and had
obtained several certificates certifying his status and had contested several
elections as a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, that his status was
6
challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988
and WP No.1039 of 2001 and the said petitions had been dismissed and as
the decisions of the High Court were judgments in rem, the Commission
could not have ignored those judgments. The High Court also held that the
Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as it had collected
material behind the back of the first respondent and recorded adverse
findings without disclosing the material collected by it to the first respondent
and without giving an opportunity to the first respondent, to have his say on
such material. The court also passed strong observations against the sixth
respondent stating that the entire exercise was politically motivated.
Consequently, it allowed the writ petition, quashed the entire proceedings of
the Commission as also the findings in the order dated 16.10.2001 as being
void and inoperative.
7. The High Court also directed the first respondent to pay cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent. Further, it directed the State of
Chhattisgarh and the Commission to file memo of calculations giving full
details of the actual cost incurred by them in resisting the said writ petition
and directed the sixth respondent to pay the said cost incurred by the State of
Chhattisgarh and the Commission.
7
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Chhattisgarh has
filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector, Bilaspur has filed CA No.4069 of
2008, the sixth respondent filed CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners
in the High Court filed CA No. 4074 of 2008. On the contentions raised, the
following questions arise for our consideration :
(i) Whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain
complaints about the genuineness of caste certificate of a particular
individual and pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate
and the caste status of such person?
(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that in view of
two earlier decisions of the High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988
decided on 24.7.1989 and WP No.1039 of 2001 decided on
24.7.2001, challenging the caste status of the first respondent, his
caste status had attained some kind of finality.
(iii) Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on
the part of the Commission as held by the High Court?
(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the
proceedings before the Commission at the instance of sixth
respondent were politically motivated?
8
Re : Question (i)
8. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the constitution of a
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Article 338A mandates the
constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant
point of time, that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and
the unamended Article 338 provided for a National Commission for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) of unamended Article
338 enumerated the duties of the Commission, relevant portions of which
are extracted below :
"(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission---
(a) To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards
provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the
Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under
any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such
safeguards;
(b) To inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation
of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;
(c) To participate and advise on the planning process of socio-
economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any
State;
(d) To present to the President, annually and at such other times as the
Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(e) To make in such reports recommendations as to the measures that
should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation
of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and
socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes and;
9
(f) To discharge such other functions in relation to the protection,
welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes as the President may, subject to the provisions of any
law made by Parliament, by rule specify.
(6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each
House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action
taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the
Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such
recommendations.
(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter
with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such report
shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be
laid before the Legislature of the State along with a memorandum
explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the
recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for the non-
acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.
(8) The Commission shall, while investigating the matters referred to
in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause
(b) of clause 5, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in
particular in respect of the following matters, namely :–
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any
part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court
or office;
(e) issuing summons/communications for the examination of
witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may by rule determine.
(9) The Union and every State Government shall consult the
Commission on all major policy matters affecting and Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx"
(emphasis supplied)
10
10. The appellants and the Commission relied upon sub-clause (b) of
clause (5) of Article 338 which provided that it shall be the duty of the
Commission to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation
of rights and safeguards to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, as the
source of power to the Commission to enquire into and decide upon the
caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe. It was
submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled tribes falsely claim the
status of scheduled tribes, they would thereby be depriving the rights and
benefits available to genuine scheduled tribes and consequently, when a
specific complaint is received alleging that any particular person had made a
false claim of being a person belonging to a scheduled tribe, the
Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such specific complaint as it
related to deprivation of rights and safeguards of scheduled tribes. It was
further argued that it had examined and decided upon the caste status of the
first respondent, after examining the material collected by it and after giving
an opportunity to the first respondent to prove that he belonged to a
scheduled tribe, and it had come to a conclusion that the first respondent had
fraudulently claimed that he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and
had obtained false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was
a Christian, who did not belong to a scheduled tribe and therefore, not
11
eligible to enjoy the reservation and other benefits extended to scheduled
tribes. It was also pointed out that the Commission had ultimately directed
the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the
ST certificate obtained by the first respondent and initiate action for
cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate criminal action in
accordance with law.
11. Dealing with the powers of a similar (State) Commission for Women,
this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State Commission for Women
[2010 (8) SCC 633], held as under :
“Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that
once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive
complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their
rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these
complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section
10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned Counsel. The provision contained in
Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive
complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of
such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for
appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State
Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an
adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State
Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial
character or a court.”
12. Dealing with the powers of the Chief Commissioner and
Commissioners under the persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity,
12
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and the Rules thereunder,
this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin – 2010 (4) SCC
368, held as follows:
“It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief
Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities
Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other
interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with
certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which
include power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume
the other powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the
provisions of the Disabilities Act.”
13. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the
Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging
to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by ensuring : (i) anti-
discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way reservation and empowerment,
and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338
did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel
a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate.
Having regard to the sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the
Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific
complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards of Scheduled
Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire
into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or State
Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and
13
measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of
scheduled tribes. This power to enquire into `deprivation of rights and
safeguards of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes’ did not include the
power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular
individual. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the
caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil vs.
Addl. Commissioner (Tribal Development) – 1994 (6) SCC 241 directed
constitution of scrutiny committees.
14. In Madhuri Patil, this Court held that on account of false social status
certificates being obtained by unscrupulous individuals, and cornering the
benefits meant for SCs and STs, persons who genuinely belonged to
scheduled castes/scheduled tribes were denied the benefit of reservation in
posts/seats and other benefits extended to SCs and STs. It therefore, felt that
there was a need to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status
certificate, their scrutiny and approval and issued the following directions :
“1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to
the Revenue-Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather
than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three
officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher
in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director,
14
Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may,
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 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.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior
Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of
Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector
would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the
candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or
city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status
claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He
also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He
should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to
their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social
status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together
with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the
Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes
or tribes or tribal communities etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance
officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or
“doubtful” or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director
concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report
of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational
institution in which the candidate is studying or employed……….
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably
by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months.
If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or
spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and
confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the
date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the
parent/guardian and the applicant.
xxxx xxxx”
15
This Court thus formulated a scheme for verification of tribal status and held
that any application for verification of tribal status as a scheduled tribe
should be carried out by such Committees. The verification of the validity of
caste certificates and determination of the caste status should therefore be
done by the Scrutiny Committees constituted as per the directions in
Madhuri Patil or in terms of any statute made by the appropriate
government in that behalf.
15. It is true that the Commission had ultimately directed the state
government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the scheduled
tribe certificate obtained by the first respondent and to initiate action for
cancellation of his scheduled tribe certificate and also criminal action as
provided in law and submit an action taken report to the Commission within
30 days. But this is preceded by a very lengthy order which categorically
records a finding that first respondent had secured a false certificate. The
order starts with the following caption: “Verification of community
certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.Jogi”. The order discloses that it had summoned
various senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent to
produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The order further states
that it had held independent inquiry through its State office to collect
16
evidence to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not
to Kanwar community. The Commission has dealt with the objection that it
had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an individual, referred to
its duties and functions in detail and concluded thus :
“Thus the Commission is fully empowered to enquire into any complaint
relating to bogus community certificate which would otherwise have the
effect of depriving the genuine ST candidates from getting admissions to
professional courses etc. or appointments to posts reserved for them or
from election to the elected bodies from the constituencies reserved for
them. Since its inception, the Commission has taken up enquiries in
thousands of cases of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly
or through its State Offices or the concerned agencies of the State
Governments and about 800 such cases are still pending with the
Commission which are being pursued.
x x x x x
It is therefore clear that the objections raised by the Respondent is not
sustainable and the Commission is well within its rights to enquire into the
matter to fine the genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri
APK Jogi, which enabled him to become an MLA from a constituency
reserved for the STs.”
The order then considers the material in great detail and records clear
finding that the first respondent had obtained a false certificate, vide para 24
which is extracted below :
“Based on the evidence available before the Commission, it is clearly
established that Late Shri Girdhari Jogi, while Shri Sinati Jogi and his
progeny continued to claim the benefit of being SCs as Satnami caste, the
grandfather of Shri A.P.K Jogi, Shri Dulare Jogi and his progeny
converted to Christianity and thus became ineligible for the benefits
available to the Scheduled Castes. (The genealogical tree of the family is
17
enclosed for ready reference). However, Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, by
fraudulently claiming to belong to `Kanwar’ community managed to get a
ST certificate in 1967 from Additional Tehsildar, Pendra Road. This
certificate was not registered in the Revenue records and was thus a
legally invalid document Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, who had subsequently joined
Indian Police Service and Indian Administrative Service, used his
influence to get the community certificate as ST and on his own
admission, contented for parliamentary elections and Assembly elections
from constituencies reserved for STs.”
16. It is only after recording the said findings, the Commission directed
the State government to verify the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained
by first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and
also initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed above,
the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other sub-
clauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an
inquiry in regard to the caste status of any particular individual, summon
documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If
such a complaint was received about the deprivation of the rights and
safeguards, it will have to refer the matter to the State Government or the
authority concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take necessary
action. It can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government or
such authority dealing with the matter to ensure that the complaint is
inquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or
the authorities did not take action, the Commission could either itself or
18
through the affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that there is a
proper verification of the caste certificate, but it cannot undertake the
exercise itself, as has been done in this case. The contention that there was
sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of
the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or
adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties.
The same is the position even under Article 338A (which was subsequently
inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with
identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained.
The High Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated
16.10.2001.
Re : Questions (ii) to (iv)
17. This does not mean that the caste certificates of the first respondent
are not to be verified. The appellants allege that among the certificates
obtained by the first respondent, the certificates dated 6.6.1967 and
27.2.1984 were issued by the Naib Tehsildar, who at the relevant point of
time did not have the authority to issue such certificates. With reference to
the certificate dated 27.2.1984, it is also contended that the case number
mentioned pertains to grant of an explosive licence to one Gokul Prasad. In
19
regard to certificates dated 6.3.1986 and 12.1.1993, it is pointed out that no
case number had been mentioned. In regard to the certificate dated
11.8.1999, it is pointed out that Naib Tehsildar at Indore, was not competent
to issue such a certificate in regard to a resident of Pendra Road, Bilaspur. In
regard to certificates dated 8.1.2001 and 20.9.2003 issued by the Additional
Collector, Bilaspur, it is pointed out that the certificates are not in the
required form and not in accordance with the relevant guidelines for
issuance of certificates. It is also alleged that on 8.4.1977, the Addl.
Tehsildar, Pendra Road had rejected the application of first respondent for
issue of a certificate showing that he belonged to `kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe.
It is also alleged that father and mother of first respondent had entered into
sale transactions on 12.8.1964, 21.9.1967 and 25.7.1979 describing
themselves as Christians and had not sought permission under section 165(6)
of MPLR Code which was mandatory, if they were tribals. We have referred
to these averments only to point out that serious allegations were made in
regard to the certificates obtained by the first respondent and the tribal status
claimed by him. The certificates have never undergone a scrutiny by a
properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at
some point of time, challenging the claim of first respondent that he belongs
to a scheduled tribe may not be conclusive as the first writ petition was
20
dismissed on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact which
could not be gone into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was
dismissed on the ground that investigation into the allegations of forged
certificates was in progress. Therefore even though the Commission was not
entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding that first respondent did not
belong to a scheduled tribe, having regard to clause 5(b) and (f) of Article
338, it had the power and authority to require the State Government or the
caste verification Committee constituted by the State Government, to
examine the caste status claimed by the first respondent. The correspondence
initiated by the Commission clearly showed a request/direction for
verification of the caste of the first respondent was made by the Commission
and the state government had responded by stating that the claim of first
respondent that he belonged to a scheduled tribe and the validity of social
status certificates would be verified by the Scrutiny Committee.
18. The High Court was therefore not justified in holding that in view of
the disposal of earlier writ petitions by the High Court, the dispute relating
to tribal status of the first respondent had attained some kind of finality. On
the facts and circumstances, there was also no justification for the High
Court to either term the application given by the sixth respondent to the
Commission as politically motivated or direct the State Government and the
21
Commission to calculate the actual expenses incurred in regard to the
inquiry and recover the same from the sixth respondent.
Conclusion
19. We therefore allow these appeals in part as under :
(i) The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to the extent it quashes
the order dated 16.10.2001 of the Commission, is upheld.
(ii) The adverse observations by the High Court about the complaint by
the sixth respondent, the inquiry by the Commission, and the stand of the
State Government and the Collector before the High Court, being politically
motivated, are set aside.
(iii) The direction to the State Government and the Commission to
calculate the actual cost incurred in prosecuting the writ petition and
directing the sixth respondent to pay the actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set
aside.
(iv) In terms of the direction of the Commission, the State Government
through a duly constituted Scrutiny Committee shall now undertake the
verification/scrutiny of the social status (tribal) certificates issued to the first
22
respondent showing him as belonging to `Kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe and
decide the matter after giving due opportunity to the first respondent,
uninfluenced by any observations by the Commission, High Court or this
Court. The State Government/concerned authorities shall be entitled to take
consequential action on the basis of the order/report of the Scrutiny
Committee.
………………………………J
[R. V. Raveendran]
………………………………J
[H. L. Dattu]
New Delhi;
October 13, 2011.
