Indra Raj Pochate vs State of MP and others

Heard Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

The basic grievance raised in this appeal is that learned Single Judge fell in error in not reversing the Minister''s revisional decision on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing before the Minister.

We find that the learned Single Judge has stated in his order that despite lack of opportunity, the Minister''s order did not suffer from any error because the Minister had found (I) that the "Caste Certificate" was issued by a Sub Divisional Officer who is an officer superior to the Tahsildar, and (ii) more importantly, because there was nothing to indicate that the residence shown in the caste certificate was not correct, the same could be accepted.

It is essentially a finding of fact recorded by the Minister.

When the petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, he could not produce any material to repel the observations of the Minister that there was nothing to indicate that the residence shown in the caste certificate was not correct.

Even in this appeal the petitioner/appellant has not been able to show any material to even cast a doubt about the place of the residence of the concerned respondent as mentioned in the caste certificate.

We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that negatives are generally not possible to be proved, therefore, it was not possible to the petitioner/appellant to adduce any evidence to show that the concerned respondent was not the resident of the place mentioned in the caste certificate. But if the concerned respondent was not the resident of that place, the said respondent would obviously be a resident of some place other than mentioned in the caste certificate. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the concerned respondent is a resident of Seoni. Now this is a definitely positive fact which could be proved by adducing some material in the writ petition or in this appeal.

Thus, the petitioner/appellant has not been able to avail the opportunity in the writ petition and thereafter in this appeal by producing any material to show that the concerned respondent was resident of some place other than that mentioned in the caste certificate. Therefore his contention about lack of opportunity of hearing before the Minister becomes an empty formality, and no interference is called for by the writ court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.