Binod Patra vs Anup Kumar Darji and Others

L. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioner in this writ application calls in question the legality of orders passed in Annexures - 3 and 7.

The case of the petitioner is that on 10.6.2000 Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited applications from the intending Scheduled Caste candidates for appointment of Dealers for its retail out-lates in different parts of the State including Sonepur. The petitioner applied for such dealership, but it was found that opposite party No. 1 had been selected even though he did not belong to Sonepur. On further inquiry, it was found that the opposite party No. 1 is ''Chhipi'' by caste and accordingly does not belong to Scheduled Caste, but obtaining a caste certificate from the Revenue Officer, Bargarh, applied for appointment as a dealer. Challenging the said appointment, two writ applications were filed, one by the petitioner bearing No. O.J.C. 10166 of 2001 and another by one Abhimanyu Kushal in O.J.C. 10430 of 2001. Both the writ applications were dismissed by order dated 24.1.2002 in view of the certificate granted in favour of opposite party No. 1 and, therefore, finding no other way the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bargarh against the order of the Tahasildar granting such certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1 in Annexure - 3. The appeal having been dismissed on the ground of delay, the present writ application has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without making any inquiry whatsoever a caste certificate was granted in favour of opposite party No. 1 by the Tahasildar in Annexure-3. It was contended by him that though the opposite party No. 1 belongs to ''Chhipi'' by caste, he described himself as ''Patua'' caste and accordingly, a certificate has been issued in his favour. This fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner till the same was produced before this Court in the writ application filed by him. Therefore, after disposal of the writ application only he preferred an appeal before the competent authority challenging the order of the Tahasildar, Bargarh granting a caste certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned considering the fact that the petitioner had no knowledge about grant of such certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1.

The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the contrary submitted that the caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar has been accepted by this Court in the aforesaid writ application filed by the petitioner and nothing remains to be decided in appeal even if the same is heard on merit.

From the record, it appears that the opposite party No 1 submitted an application for grant of caste certificate stating therein that though his father was recorded as belonging to ''Chhipi'' caste as a matter of fact he belongs to ''Patua'' caste and accordingly a certificate has been issued in favour of other person belonging to Ward No. 11. On the basis of such application, an inquiry was made and the Revenue Officer, Baragarh on 8.9.95 submitted the report stating that the opposite party No. 1 belongs to ''Patua'' caste. On the basis of such inquiry report, a caste certificate was directed to be issued in favour of opposite party No. 1 by the Tahasildar, Baragarh in Annexure-3. On the basis of such caste certificate, the opposite party No. 1 applied for appointment as a dealer and was also selected. Challenging the said selection of opposite party No. 1, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court. While dismissing the writ application this Court observed as follows :

"Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Dealer Selection Board has produced before us, the original records from which it appears that the Additional Tahasildar, Bargarh has granted certificate (vide Misc. Case No. 1562/1995) to the effect that he (Anup Kumar Darjee) belongs to ''Patua'' caste which is recognised as a scheduled caste by the presidential order. We have gone through the presidential order and found that ''Patua'' caste is one of the scheduled castes. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner."

Only after disposal of the writ application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector and by order dated 29.7.2002 the Collector dismissed the appeal as no satisfactory reasons were given by the petitioner for delay of seven years in filing the appeal. In view of the above, it is clear that the caste certificate granted by the Tahasildar was based on inquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no inquiry whatsoever does not appear to be correct. However, this certificate was produced along with the application for appointment as dealer in the year 2000. The petitioner in stead of challenging the certificate at that point of time, only after his writ application was dismissed by this Court on 24.1.2002, preferred an appeal challenging the grant of certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1. Even though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that he had no knowledge about grant of such certificate in favour of opposite party No. 1, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about grant of such certificate in the year 2000 when the opposite party No. 1 submitted an application for appointment as a dealer on the basis of such caste certificate. The petitioner could have challenged the certificate in the year 2000 itself in stead of waiting for disposal of the writ application.

In view of what has been observed by this Court in the writ application quoted above and in view of long delay in filing the appeal and considering the laches on the part of the petitioner in not preferring an appeal immediately after he came to know about such grant of certificate, we do not find any reason to Interfere with the order in Annexure - 7.

Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed.

Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.

I agree.