{"id":150390,"date":"2011-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-11T11:30:14","modified_gmt":"2017-03-11T06:00:14","slug":"collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                                                                                 Reportable \n\n\n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.4069 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\nCollector, Bilaspur                                                         .........Appellant\n\n\nVs. \n\n\nAjit P. K. Jogi & Ors.                                                      .......Respondents \n\n\nWITH\n\n\nCivil Appeal No.4074 of 2008\n\nCivil Appeal No.4079 of 2008\n\nCivil Appeal No.4082 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
R. V. Raveendran J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        These   four   appeals   by   special   leave   are   filed   against   the   judgment <\/p>\n
dated 15.12.2006 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011. <\/p>\n
As   the   ranks   of   parties   differ,   they   are   referred   to   by   their   ranks   in   CA  <\/p>\n
No.4069\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.     The   first   respondent   (Ajit   P.K.   Jogi)   claimed   that   he   belonged   to   a <\/p>\n
tribal   community   known   as   `Kanwar’,   a   notified   Scheduled   Tribe.   He <\/p>\n
obtained  social  status\/caste  certificates  from  time  to  time,   showing  him as <\/p>\n
belonging   to   Kanwar-Scheduled   Tribe,   that   is,   certificate   dated   6.6.1967 <\/p>\n
from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984 <\/p>\n
by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by <\/p>\n
the   Tehsildar,   Pendra   Road,   certificate   dated   12.1.1993   by   the   Naib <\/p>\n
Tehsildar,   Pendra   Road,   Bilaspur,   certificate   dated   11.8.1999   by   Naib <\/p>\n
Tehsildar,   Indore,   certificate   dated   8.1.2001   from   the   Addl.   Collector, <\/p>\n
Bilaspur  and  certificate  dated  30.9.2003 by  Addl. Collector,  Bilaspur.  The <\/p>\n
first   respondent   was   elected   twice   to   Rajya   Sabha   and   contested   two <\/p>\n
parliamentary   elections   from   Raigarh   and   Shahdol   constituencies.   He <\/p>\n
successfully   contested   from   Marwahi   Vidhan   Sabha   constituency   reserved <\/p>\n
for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh <\/p>\n
came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and <\/p>\n
served in that capacity till December, 2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     In   the   year   2001,   the   sixth   respondent   filed   a   complaint   before   the <\/p>\n
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the third <\/p>\n
respondent herein, for short `Commission’) alleging that the first respondent <\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
was a Christian and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he  <\/p>\n
had   obtained   several   false   caste   certificates   showing   him   as   belonging   to <\/p>\n
`Kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a constituency <\/p>\n
reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He requested that appropriate action be taken <\/p>\n
in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     The   Commission   issued   a   show   cause   notice   to   the   first   respondent  <\/p>\n
proposing   to   verify   his   caste   certificate.   The   Commission   referred   the <\/p>\n
complaint   received   from   the   sixth   respondent   to   the   Chief   Secretary, <\/p>\n
Government   of   Chhattisgarh   on   29.1.2001.   The   state   government   (fourth <\/p>\n
respondent)   responded   to   the   Commission   stating   that   it   had   constituted   a <\/p>\n
committee   dated   27.2.2001   for   verification   of   caste   certificates   and   the <\/p>\n
reference   received   from   the   Commission     had   been   transmitted   to   the <\/p>\n
Principal   Secretary,   Department   for   Welfare   of   SCs,   STs,   OBCs   and <\/p>\n
Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent) for necessary verification through the <\/p>\n
said Committee. The Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary <\/p>\n
of   Chhattisgarh   to   appear   before   the   Commission   on   24.1.2001   with   all <\/p>\n
documents   relating   to   the   caste   status   of   the   Chief   Minister   (first <\/p>\n
respondent). The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled <\/p>\n
Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   Welfare   Department   to   appear   on   18.5.2011 <\/p>\n
                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by <\/p>\n
the   state   government   relating   to   verification   of   caste   certificates.   He <\/p>\n
submitted that having regard to the provision made by the state government <\/p>\n
for verification of caste certificate by a scrutiny committee, the Commission <\/p>\n
did   not   have   jurisdiction   to   verify   the   caste   certificate   issued   to   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent. The Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from <\/p>\n
the   Government   of   Chhattisgarh   and   instructed   its   branch   at   Bhopal   to <\/p>\n
ascertain   the   correct   position   and   verify   the   caste   claim   of   the   first <\/p>\n
respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected some material to show <\/p>\n
that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste (a backward class) and <\/p>\n
that he did not belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as <\/p>\n
a MLA from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on a false <\/p>\n
caste   certificate.   On   the   basis   of   alleged   material   so   collected,   the <\/p>\n
Commission called upon the first respondent, vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to <\/p>\n
offer his explanation and also appear before the Commission on 30.9.2001 <\/p>\n
with necessary documents. One Mr. R. N. Sharma, Chief Legal Adviser to <\/p>\n
the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh appeared on behalf of the first respondent <\/p>\n
and submitted a reply dated 12.9.2001 to the notice dated 26.5.2001. Several <\/p>\n
documents were furnished and written submissions were also filed. <\/p>\n
                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
5.      The Commission made an order dated 16.10.2001. We extract below <\/p>\n
the preamble and operative portion of the said order :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “In the matter of  :  Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                 Jogi,   S\/o   Shri   K.P.   Jogi,   Village   Sarbahra,   Tehsil <\/p>\n
                                 Pendra Road, District Bilaspur.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                                    xxxxx                                xxxxxx<\/p>\n
        Taking into consideration the available  evidence as discussed above, the <\/p>\n
        commission   is   of   the   considered   view   that   Shri   Ajit   P.K.   Jogi  has   been  <\/p>\n
        fraudulently claiming to belong to Kanwar community for the purpose of <\/p>\n
        getting   ST   certificate,   although   he   and   his   ancestors   belong   to   Satnami <\/p>\n
        caste, which is included in the SC list of the State. However, as Shri Ajit  <\/p>\n
        P.K. Jogi’s grandfather appears to have got converted to Christianity,  he <\/p>\n
        was not eligible for concessions\/benefits available to SCs also. The state <\/p>\n
        government   is,   therefore,   called   upon   to   conduct   the   verification   of <\/p>\n
        genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by Shri APK Jogi and to initiate <\/p>\n
        urgent   necessary   action   for   cancellation   of   his   ST   certificate   and   also <\/p>\n
        criminal action as provided in the law and the rules. A report on the action  <\/p>\n
        taken may be submitted to the Commission within 30 days.” <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
6.      The said   order was  challenged  by  the  first  respondent   by  filing  WP <\/p>\n
No.2080 of 2001 in the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Division Bench of the <\/p>\n
High   Court   by   the   impugned   order   dated   15.12.2006   allowed   the   writ <\/p>\n
petition.   It   held   that   the   complaint   of   the   sixth   respondent   before   the <\/p>\n
Commission questioning the social status of first respondent was politically <\/p>\n
motivated, that the first respondent had been openly claiming the status of  a <\/p>\n
person belonging to a scheduled tribe, at least from the year 1967 and had <\/p>\n
obtained several certificates certifying his status and had contested several <\/p>\n
elections   as   a   person   belonging   to   a   scheduled   tribe,   that   his   status   was <\/p>\n
                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988 <\/p>\n
and WP No.1039 of 2001 and the said petitions had been dismissed and as <\/p>\n
the   decisions   of   the   High   Court   were   judgments   in   rem,   the   Commission <\/p>\n
could not have ignored those judgments. The High Court also held that the <\/p>\n
Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as it had collected <\/p>\n
material   behind   the   back   of   the   first   respondent   and   recorded   adverse <\/p>\n
findings without disclosing the material collected by it to the first respondent <\/p>\n
and without giving an opportunity to the first respondent, to have his say on <\/p>\n
such   material.   The   court   also   passed   strong   observations   against   the   sixth <\/p>\n
respondent   stating   that   the   entire   exercise   was   politically   motivated. <\/p>\n
Consequently, it allowed the writ petition, quashed the entire proceedings of <\/p>\n
the Commission as also the findings in the order dated 16.10.2001 as being <\/p>\n
void and inoperative.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     The   High   Court   also   directed   the   first   respondent   to   pay   cost   of <\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-   to   the   first   respondent.   Further,   it   directed   the   State   of  <\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh   and  the  Commission  to  file   memo   of calculations  giving  full <\/p>\n
details of the actual cost incurred by them in resisting the said writ petition <\/p>\n
and directed the sixth respondent to pay the said cost incurred by the State of <\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh and the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.            Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Chhattisgarh has <\/p>\n
filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector, Bilaspur has filed CA No.4069 of <\/p>\n
2008, the sixth respondent filed CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners <\/p>\n
in the High Court filed CA No. 4074 of 2008. On the contentions raised, the  <\/p>\n
following questions arise for our consideration :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (i)        Whether   the   Commission   had   the   jurisdiction   to   entertain <\/p>\n
                 complaints about the genuineness of caste certificate of a particular <\/p>\n
                 individual and pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate <\/p>\n
                 and the caste status of such person?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)       Whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   holding   that   in   view   of <\/p>\n
                 two   earlier   decisions  of   the   High   Court  in  WP   No.1417   of  1988 <\/p>\n
                 decided   on   24.7.1989   and   WP   No.1039   of   2001   decided   on <\/p>\n
                 24.7.2001, challenging the caste status of the first respondent, his <\/p>\n
                 caste status had attained some kind of finality.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)      Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on <\/p>\n
                 the part of the Commission as held by the High Court?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iv)       Whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   holding   that   the <\/p>\n
                 proceedings   before   the   Commission   at   the   instance   of   sixth <\/p>\n
                 respondent were politically motivated?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Re : Question (i) <\/p>\n
8.     Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the constitution of a <\/p>\n
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Article 338A mandates the <\/p>\n
constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant  <\/p>\n
point of time, that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and <\/p>\n
the   unamended   Article   338   provided   for   a   National   Commission   for <\/p>\n
Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes.   Clause   (5)   of  unamended   Article <\/p>\n
338   enumerated   the   duties   of   the   Commission,   relevant   portions   of  which <\/p>\n
are extracted below :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       \"(5)       It shall be the duty of the Commission---\n\n        \n\n       (a)        To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards  \n\n<\/pre>\n
       provided   for   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   under   the  <\/p>\n
       Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under  <\/p>\n
       any   order   of   the   Government   and   to   evaluate   the   working   of   such  <\/p>\n
       safeguards;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (b)      To inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation  <\/p>\n
       of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;<\/p>\n
       (c)        To   participate   and   advise   on   the   planning   process   of   socio-<\/p>\n
       economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and <\/p>\n
       to   evaluate   the   progress   of   their   development   under   the   Union   and   any <\/p>\n
       State;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (d)        To present to the President, annually and at such other times as the <\/p>\n
       Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards; <\/p>\n
       (e)        To make in such reports recommendations as to the measures that <\/p>\n
       should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation <\/p>\n
       of   those   safeguards   and   other   measures   for   the   protection,   welfare   and <\/p>\n
       socio-economic   development   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled <\/p>\n
       Tribes and;\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     (f)         To   discharge   such   other   functions   in   relation   to   the   protection,  <\/p>\n
     welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and  <\/p>\n
     Scheduled  Tribes  as the President  may, subject to the provisions  of any  <\/p>\n
     law made by Parliament, by rule specify.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)             The   President   shall   cause   all   such   reports   to   be   laid   before   each <\/p>\n
     House   of   Parliament   along   with   a   memorandum   explaining   the   action <\/p>\n
     taken   or   proposed   to   be   taken   on   the   recommendations   relating   to   the <\/p>\n
     Union   and   the   reasons   for   the   non-acceptance,   if   any,   of   any   of   such <\/p>\n
     recommendations.\n<\/p>\n
\n     (7)             Where  any such report, or any part thereof, relates  to any matter <\/p>\n
     with   which   any   State   Government   is   concerned,   a   copy   of   such   report <\/p>\n
     shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be  <\/p>\n
     laid   before   the   Legislature   of   the   State   along   with   a   memorandum <\/p>\n
     explaining   the   action   taken   or   proposed   to   be   taken   on   the <\/p>\n
     recommendations   relating   to   the   State   and   the   reasons   for   the   non-<\/p>\n
     acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.\n<\/p>\n
     (8)             The Commission shall, while investigating the matters referred to <\/p>\n
     in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause <\/p>\n
     (b) of clause 5, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in  <\/p>\n
     particular in respect of the following matters, namely :–<\/p>\n
             (a)       summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any <\/p>\n
                       part of India and examining him on oath;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (b)       requiring the discovery and production of any documents;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (c)     receiving evidence on affidavits;\n\n             (d)    requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court \n\n                       or office;\n\n             (e)    issuing   summons\/communications   for   the   examination   of \n\n                       witnesses and documents;\n\n             (f)    any other matter which the President may by rule determine.\n\n      \n\n      \n\n     (9)             The   Union   and   every   State   Government   shall   consult   the \n\n<\/pre>\n
     Commission  on all major policy matters  affecting  and Scheduled Castes <\/p>\n
     and Scheduled Tribes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     xxxxxx                   xxxxxxx\"\n\n                                                                                 (emphasis supplied) \n\n \n\n\n                                                 10<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
10.     The   appellants   and   the   Commission   relied   upon   sub-clause   (b)   of <\/p>\n
clause   (5)   of   Article   338   which   provided   that   it   shall   be   the   duty   of   the <\/p>\n
Commission to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation <\/p>\n
of   rights   and   safeguards   to   scheduled   castes   and   scheduled   tribes,   as   the <\/p>\n
source   of   power   to   the   Commission   to   enquire   into   and   decide   upon   the <\/p>\n
caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe. It was <\/p>\n
submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled tribes falsely claim the <\/p>\n
status   of   scheduled   tribes,   they   would   thereby   be   depriving   the   rights   and <\/p>\n
benefits   available   to   genuine   scheduled   tribes   and   consequently,   when   a <\/p>\n
specific complaint is received alleging that any particular person had made a <\/p>\n
false   claim   of   being   a   person   belonging   to   a   scheduled   tribe,   the <\/p>\n
Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such specific complaint as it <\/p>\n
related   to   deprivation   of   rights   and   safeguards   of   scheduled   tribes.   It   was <\/p>\n
further argued that it had examined and decided upon the caste status of the <\/p>\n
first respondent, after examining the material collected by it and after giving <\/p>\n
an   opportunity   to   the   first   respondent   to   prove   that   he   belonged   to   a <\/p>\n
scheduled tribe, and it had come to a conclusion that the first respondent had <\/p>\n
fraudulently claimed that he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and <\/p>\n
had obtained false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was <\/p>\n
a   Christian,   who   did   not   belong   to   a   scheduled   tribe   and   therefore,   not  <\/p>\n
                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
eligible   to   enjoy   the   reservation   and   other   benefits   extended   to   scheduled <\/p>\n
tribes. It was also pointed out that the Commission had ultimately directed <\/p>\n
the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the <\/p>\n
ST   certificate   obtained   by   the   first   respondent   and   initiate   action   for <\/p>\n
cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate criminal action in <\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
11.    Dealing with the powers of a similar (State) Commission for Women, <\/p>\n
this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State Commission<\/a> for Women  <\/p>\n
[2010 (8) SCC 633], held as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that <\/p>\n
       once   a   power   has   been   given   to   the   State   Commission   to   receive <\/p>\n
       complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their <\/p>\n
       rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these <\/p>\n
       complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section <\/p>\n
       10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned Counsel. The provision contained in <\/p>\n
       Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive <\/p>\n
       complaints   in   relation   to   the   matters   specified   therein   and   on   receipt   of <\/p>\n
       such   complaints   take   up   the   matter   with   the   authorities   concerned   for <\/p>\n
       appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State <\/p>\n
       Commission   with   the   power   to   take   up   the   role   of   a   court   or   an  <\/p>\n
       adjudicatory   tribunal   and   determine   the   rights   of   the   parties.   The   State <\/p>\n
       Commission   is   not   a   tribunal   discharging   the   functions   of   a   judicial <\/p>\n
       character or a court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.    Dealing   with   the   powers   of   the   Chief   Commissioner   and <\/p>\n
Commissioners   under   the   persons   with   Disabilities   (Equal   Opportunity, <\/p>\n
                                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
Protection  of Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act  and  the  Rules  thereunder,  <\/p>\n
this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin<\/a> – 2010 (4) SCC <\/p>\n
368, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “It   is   evident   from   the   said   provisions,   that   neither   the   Chief <\/p>\n
       Commissioner   nor   any   Commissioner   functioning   under   the   Disabilities <\/p>\n
       Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other <\/p>\n
       interim   directions.   The   fact   that   the   Disabilities   Act   clothes   them   with <\/p>\n
       certain   powers   of   a   civil   court   for   discharge   of   their   functions   (which <\/p>\n
       include power to look into complaints), does not enable  them to assume <\/p>\n
       the   other   powers   of   a   civil   court   which   are   not   vested   in   them   by   the  <\/p>\n
       provisions of the Disabilities Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
13.    It   is   evident   from   Article   338   as   it   originally   stood,   that   the <\/p>\n
Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging <\/p>\n
to   scheduled   castes   and   scheduled   tribes   by   ensuring   :   (i)   anti-<\/p>\n
discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way reservation and empowerment, <\/p>\n
and (iii) redressal of grievances.   The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 <\/p>\n
did not extend to either issue of caste\/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel <\/p>\n
a caste\/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate.  <\/p>\n
Having   regard   to   the   sub-clause   (b)   of   clause   (5)   of   Article   338,   the  <\/p>\n
Commission   could   no   doubt   entertain   and   enquire   into   any   specific <\/p>\n
complaint   about   deprivation   of   any   rights   and   safeguards   of   Scheduled <\/p>\n
Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire <\/p>\n
into   such   complaint   and   give   a  report   to  the   Central   Government   or  State <\/p>\n
Government   requiring   effective   implementation   of   the   safeguards   and <\/p>\n
                                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of <\/p>\n
scheduled   tribes.   This   power   to   enquire   into   `deprivation   of   rights   and <\/p>\n
safeguards of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes’ did not include the <\/p>\n
power   to   enquire   into   and   decide   the   caste\/tribe   status   of   any   particular <\/p>\n
individual.   In   fact,   as   there   was   no   effective   mechanism   to   verify   the <\/p>\n
caste\/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in  Madhuri Patil vs.  <\/p>\n
Addl.   Commissioner   (Tribal   Development)<\/a>  –   1994   (6)   SCC   241   directed <\/p>\n
constitution of scrutiny committees.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     In Madhuri Patil, this Court held that on account of false social status <\/p>\n
certificates   being   obtained   by   unscrupulous   individuals,   and   cornering   the <\/p>\n
benefits   meant   for   SCs   and   STs,   persons   who   genuinely   belonged   to <\/p>\n
scheduled castes\/scheduled  tribes were denied the benefit of reservation in <\/p>\n
posts\/seats and other benefits extended to SCs and STs. It therefore, felt that <\/p>\n
there   was   a   need   to   streamline   the   procedure   for   issuance   of   social   status <\/p>\n
certificate, their scrutiny and approval and issued the following directions : <\/p>\n
        “1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to <\/p>\n
        the   Revenue-Sub-Divisional   Officer   and   Deputy   Collector   or   Deputy <\/p>\n
        Commissioner   and   the   certificate   shall   be   issued   by   such   Officer   rather <\/p>\n
        than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.   All   the   State   Governments   shall   constitute   a   Committee   of   three <\/p>\n
        officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher <\/p>\n
        in   rank   of   the   Director   of   the   concerned   department,   (II)   the   Director, <\/p>\n
                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
Social Welfare\/Tribal Welfare\/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, <\/p>\n
and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate <\/p>\n
knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. <\/p>\n
In the case the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate <\/p>\n
knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups <\/p>\n
of tribes or tribal communities.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior <\/p>\n
Deputy Superintendent  of  Police   in  over  all  charge  and  such number  of <\/p>\n
Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector <\/p>\n
would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the  <\/p>\n
candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or <\/p>\n
city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer <\/p>\n
should   personally   verify   and   collect   all   the   facts   of   the   social   status <\/p>\n
claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He <\/p>\n
also   should   examine   the   school   records,   birth   registration,   if   any.   He <\/p>\n
should   also   examine   the   parent,   guardian   or   the   candidate   in   relation   to <\/p>\n
their  caste  etc.  or such  other persons  who have knowledge  of the social <\/p>\n
status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together <\/p>\n
with   all   particulars   as   envisaged   in   the   proforma,   in   particular,   of   the <\/p>\n
Scheduled   Tribes   relating   to   their   peculiar   anthropological   and <\/p>\n
ethnological   traits,   deities,   rituals,   customs,   mode   of   marriage,   death <\/p>\n
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes <\/p>\n
or tribes or tribal communities etc.<\/p>\n
6.   The   Director   concerned,   on   receipt   of   the   report   from   the   vigilance <\/p>\n
officer   if   he   found   the   claim   for   social   status   to   be   “not   genuine”   or <\/p>\n
“doubtful”   or   spurious   or   falsely   or   wrongly   claimed,   the   Director <\/p>\n
concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report <\/p>\n
of   the   vigilance   officer   to   the   candidate   by   a   registered   post   with <\/p>\n
acknowledgement  due or through  the head  of the concerned  educational <\/p>\n
institution in which the candidate is studying or employed……….<\/p>\n
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably <\/p>\n
by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. <\/p>\n
If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or <\/p>\n
spurious,  they  should   pass  an  order   cancelling   the  certificate   issued   and <\/p>\n
confiscate   the   same.   It   should   communicate   within   one   month   from   the <\/p>\n
date   of   the   conclusion   of   the   proceedings   the   result   of   enquiry   to   the <\/p>\n
parent\/guardian and the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            xxxx                         xxxx”\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                15<\/span><\/p>\n
This Court thus formulated a scheme for verification of tribal status and held <\/p>\n
that   any   application   for   verification   of   tribal   status   as   a   scheduled   tribe <\/p>\n
should be carried out by such Committees. The verification of the validity of <\/p>\n
caste   certificates   and   determination   of  the   caste   status   should   therefore   be  <\/p>\n
done   by   the   Scrutiny   Committees   constituted   as   per   the   directions   in <\/p>\n
Madhuri   Patil  or   in   terms   of   any   statute   made   by   the   appropriate <\/p>\n
government in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.     It   is   true   that   the   Commission   had   ultimately   directed   the   state <\/p>\n
government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the scheduled <\/p>\n
tribe   certificate   obtained   by   the   first   respondent   and   to   initiate   action   for <\/p>\n
cancellation   of   his   scheduled   tribe   certificate   and   also   criminal   action   as <\/p>\n
provided in law and submit an action taken report to the Commission within <\/p>\n
30   days.   But   this  is  preceded   by   a  very   lengthy   order  which   categorically <\/p>\n
records   a   finding   that   first   respondent   had   secured   a   false   certificate.   The <\/p>\n
order   starts   with   the   following   caption:   “Verification   of   community <\/p>\n
certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.Jogi”. The order discloses that it had summoned <\/p>\n
various senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent to <\/p>\n
produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The order further states <\/p>\n
that   it   had   held   independent   inquiry   through   its   State   office   to   collect <\/p>\n
                                                     16<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not  <\/p>\n
to Kanwar community. The Commission has dealt with the objection that it <\/p>\n
had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an individual, referred to <\/p>\n
its duties and functions in detail and concluded thus :<\/p>\n
       “Thus the Commission is fully empowered to enquire into any complaint  <\/p>\n
       relating to bogus community certificate which would otherwise have the <\/p>\n
       effect of depriving the genuine ST candidates from getting admissions to <\/p>\n
       professional   courses   etc.   or   appointments   to   posts   reserved   for   them   or <\/p>\n
       from   election   to   the   elected   bodies   from   the   constituencies   reserved   for <\/p>\n
       them.   Since   its   inception,   the   Commission   has   taken   up   enquiries   in <\/p>\n
       thousands of cases of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly  <\/p>\n
       or   through   its   State   Offices   or   the   concerned   agencies   of   the   State <\/p>\n
       Governments   and   about   800   such   cases   are   still   pending   with   the <\/p>\n
       Commission which are being pursued.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       x x x x x<\/p>\n
       It   is   therefore   clear   that   the   objections   raised   by   the   Respondent   is   not <\/p>\n
       sustainable and the Commission is well within its rights to enquire into the <\/p>\n
       matter to fine the genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri <\/p>\n
       APK   Jogi,   which   enabled   him   to   become   an   MLA   from   a   constituency <\/p>\n
       reserved for the STs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   order   then   considers   the   material   in   great   detail   and   records   clear <\/p>\n
finding that the first respondent had obtained a false certificate, vide para 24  <\/p>\n
which is extracted below :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “Based   on   the   evidence   available   before   the   Commission,   it   is   clearly <\/p>\n
       established   that   Late   Shri   Girdhari   Jogi,   while   Shri   Sinati   Jogi   and   his <\/p>\n
       progeny continued to claim the benefit of being SCs as Satnami caste, the <\/p>\n
       grandfather   of   Shri   A.P.K   Jogi,   Shri   Dulare   Jogi   and   his   progeny <\/p>\n
       converted   to   Christianity   and   thus   became   ineligible   for   the   benefits <\/p>\n
       available to the Scheduled Castes. (The genealogical tree of the family is <\/p>\n
                                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
        enclosed   for   ready   reference).   However,   Shri   Ajit   P.   K.   Jogi,   by <\/p>\n
        fraudulently claiming to belong to `Kanwar’ community managed to get a <\/p>\n
        ST   certificate   in   1967   from   Additional   Tehsildar,   Pendra   Road.   This <\/p>\n
        certificate   was   not   registered   in   the   Revenue   records   and   was   thus   a <\/p>\n
        legally invalid document Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, who had subsequently joined <\/p>\n
        Indian   Police   Service   and   Indian   Administrative   Service,   used   his <\/p>\n
        influence   to   get   the   community   certificate   as   ST   and   on   his   own <\/p>\n
        admission, contented for parliamentary elections  and Assembly elections <\/p>\n
        from constituencies reserved for STs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
16.     It is only after recording the said findings, the Commission directed  <\/p>\n
the State government to verify the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained <\/p>\n
by first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and <\/p>\n
also initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed above, <\/p>\n
the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other sub-<\/p>\n
clauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an <\/p>\n
inquiry   in   regard   to   the   caste   status   of   any   particular   individual,   summon <\/p>\n
documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If <\/p>\n
such   a   complaint   was   received   about   the   deprivation   of   the   rights   and <\/p>\n
safeguards,  it will have to refer the matter to the State Government  or the <\/p>\n
authority concerned with verification of caste\/tribal status, to take necessary <\/p>\n
action. It can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government  or  <\/p>\n
such   authority   dealing   with   the   matter   to   ensure   that   the   complaint   is <\/p>\n
inquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or <\/p>\n
the   authorities   did   not   take   action,   the   Commission   could   either   itself   or <\/p>\n
                                                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
through   the   affected   persons,   initiate   legal   action   to   ensure   that   there   is   a <\/p>\n
proper   verification   of   the   caste   certificate,   but   it   cannot   undertake   the <\/p>\n
exercise itself, as has been done in this case. The contention that there was <\/p>\n
sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of <\/p>\n
the duties of the Commission  as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or <\/p>\n
adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties.  <\/p>\n
The same is the position even under Article 338A (which was subsequently <\/p>\n
inserted)   providing   for   a   separate   Commission   for   Scheduled   Tribes   with <\/p>\n
identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained. <\/p>\n
The   High   Court   was   justified   in   setting   aside   the   said   order   dated <\/p>\n
16.10.2001.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Questions (ii) to (iv)<\/p>\n
17.     This does not mean  that the caste certificates of the first respondent <\/p>\n
are   not   to   be   verified.   The   appellants   allege   that   among   the   certificates  <\/p>\n
obtained   by   the   first   respondent,   the   certificates   dated   6.6.1967   and <\/p>\n
27.2.1984 were issued by the Naib Tehsildar, who at the relevant point of <\/p>\n
time did not have the authority to issue such certificates. With reference to <\/p>\n
the   certificate   dated   27.2.1984,   it   is   also   contended   that   the   case   number <\/p>\n
mentioned pertains to grant of an explosive licence to one Gokul Prasad. In <\/p>\n
                                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
regard to certificates dated 6.3.1986 and 12.1.1993, it is pointed out that no <\/p>\n
case   number   had   been   mentioned.   In   regard   to   the   certificate   dated <\/p>\n
11.8.1999, it is pointed out that Naib Tehsildar at Indore, was not competent <\/p>\n
to issue such a certificate in regard to a resident of Pendra Road, Bilaspur. In <\/p>\n
regard to certificates dated 8.1.2001 and 20.9.2003 issued by the Additional <\/p>\n
Collector,   Bilaspur,   it   is   pointed   out   that   the   certificates   are   not   in   the <\/p>\n
required   form   and   not   in   accordance   with   the   relevant   guidelines   for <\/p>\n
issuance   of   certificates.   It   is   also   alleged   that   on   8.4.1977,   the   Addl. <\/p>\n
Tehsildar, Pendra Road had rejected the application of first respondent for <\/p>\n
issue of a certificate showing that he belonged to `kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe. <\/p>\n
It is also alleged that father and mother of first respondent had entered into <\/p>\n
sale   transactions   on   12.8.1964,   21.9.1967   and   25.7.1979   describing <\/p>\n
themselves as Christians and had not sought permission under section 165(6) <\/p>\n
of MPLR Code which was mandatory, if they were tribals. We have referred  <\/p>\n
to these averments only to point out that serious allegations were made  in <\/p>\n
regard to the certificates obtained by the first respondent and the tribal status <\/p>\n
claimed   by   him.   The   certificates   have   never   undergone   a   scrutiny   by   a <\/p>\n
properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at <\/p>\n
some point of time, challenging the claim of first respondent that he belongs <\/p>\n
to   a   scheduled   tribe   may   not   be   conclusive   as   the   first   writ   petition   was <\/p>\n
                                               20<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed   on   the   ground   that   it   involved   disputed   questions   of   fact   which <\/p>\n
could not be gone into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was  <\/p>\n
dismissed   on   the   ground   that   investigation   into   the   allegations   of   forged <\/p>\n
certificates was in progress. Therefore even though the Commission was not  <\/p>\n
entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding  that first respondent did not  <\/p>\n
belong to a scheduled tribe, having regard to clause 5(b) and (f) of Article <\/p>\n
338, it had the power and authority to require the State Government or the  <\/p>\n
caste   verification   Committee   constituted   by   the   State   Government,   to <\/p>\n
examine the caste status claimed by the first respondent. The correspondence <\/p>\n
initiated   by   the   Commission   clearly   showed   a   request\/direction   for <\/p>\n
verification of the caste of the first respondent was made by the Commission <\/p>\n
and   the   state   government   had   responded   by   stating   that   the   claim   of   first <\/p>\n
respondent that he belonged to a scheduled tribe and the validity of social <\/p>\n
status certificates would be verified by the Scrutiny Committee. <\/p>\n
18.     The High Court was therefore not justified in holding that in view of <\/p>\n
the disposal of earlier writ petitions by the High Court, the dispute relating <\/p>\n
to tribal status of the first respondent had attained some kind of finality. On <\/p>\n
the   facts   and   circumstances,   there   was   also   no   justification   for   the   High <\/p>\n
Court   to   either   term   the   application   given   by   the   sixth   respondent   to   the <\/p>\n
Commission as politically motivated or direct the State Government and the  <\/p>\n
                                                21<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission   to   calculate   the   actual   expenses   incurred   in   regard   to   the <\/p>\n
inquiry and recover the same from the sixth respondent. <\/p>\n
Conclusion <\/p>\n
19.        We therefore allow these appeals in part as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)        The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to the extent it quashes  <\/p>\n
the order dated 16.10.2001 of the Commission, is upheld. <\/p>\n
(ii)       The adverse observations by the High Court about the complaint by <\/p>\n
the sixth  respondent,  the inquiry  by  the  Commission,  and the stand  of the  <\/p>\n
State Government and the Collector before the High Court, being politically <\/p>\n
motivated, are set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iii)      The   direction   to   the   State   Government   and   the   Commission   to <\/p>\n
calculate   the   actual   cost   incurred   in   prosecuting   the   writ   petition   and <\/p>\n
directing the sixth respondent to pay the actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set <\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iv)       In   terms   of   the   direction   of   the   Commission,   the   State   Government <\/p>\n
through   a   duly   constituted   Scrutiny   Committee   shall   now   undertake   the <\/p>\n
verification\/scrutiny of the social status (tribal) certificates issued to the first <\/p>\n
                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent   showing   him   as   belonging   to   `Kanwar’   Scheduled   Tribe   and <\/p>\n
decide   the   matter   after   giving   due   opportunity   to   the   first   respondent, <\/p>\n
uninfluenced   by   any   observations   by   the   Commission,   High   Court   or   this <\/p>\n
Court. The State Government\/concerned authorities shall be entitled to take <\/p>\n
consequential   action   on   the   basis   of   the   order\/report   of   the   Scrutiny <\/p>\n
Committee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                                                    [R. V. Raveendran]<\/p>\n
                                                      ………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                                                           [H. L. Dattu]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
October 13, 2011.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 Author: R V Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, H.L. Dattu 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCollector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011"},"wordCount":4979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011","name":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-11T06:00:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collectorbilaspur-vs-ajit-p-k-jogi-ors-on-13-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector,Bilaspur vs Ajit P.K.Jogi & Ors on 13 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}