Ramaprasad Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the final order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure T to the writ petition) passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) cancelling the SC certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the SLSC rejecting the representation dated 09.04.2007 filed by him (Annexure F to the writ petition).

This case has got a chequered history. The petitioner's SC certificate was cancelled by the Issuing Authority (the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar). The petitioner had challenged that order by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 325 of 2002 on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to make his representation against the prima facie observation made on his caste status. According to the petitioner, the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer was outcome of the exparte proceeding. By the common judgment dated 04.01.2006 (Annexure A to the writ petition) the Gauhati High Court had having jurisdiction over the subject-matter at the relevant time, interfered with the order of cancellation and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry by the SLSC in terms of the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and another reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:

"All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the light of the discussions made above with a direction to the State respondents to refer the cases of the petitioners to the scrutiny committee, which is competent to cause an inquiry to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court as noted above and contained in the notification dated 12.12.2003 of the State Government. Till the entire process of inquiry and decision making is completed, the status of the petitioners herein and all the benefits flowing therefrom shall remain unhindered and unaffected."

Thus, the petitioner enjoyed the benefit till the impugned order dated 28.11.2006 was issued by the SLSC after inquiry made in terms of the said direction. There is no dispute that by the show cause notice under No. 2-134(D) (A-68)/SCW/GL/2000/5517 dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure B to the writ petition) the petitioner was given an opportunity to represent his case in writing with all relevant records and evidence within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice for consideration. Along with the said show-cause notice dated 17.07.2006, the report of the Vigilance Officer in full was supplied to the petitioner. Having received the said notice dated 17.07.2006, the petitioner filed his reply on 31.10.2006 canvassing some irrelevant matters including why the government has not returned his SC certificate after the order of the High Court etc. Thereafter, he has stated as follows:

"3. That, it is doubtful whether any enquiry worth-name was at all held and even it was held at all, that must be held to be illegal and unsustainable, in view of the position of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1979(1)SCC 60.

That, from the conduct of the authorities, it appears that they are adamant to cancel my Schedule Caste certificate by any means whatsoever, either legally or otherwise, which is not fair on the part of the Government.

That, be that as it may, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that even in case of cancellation of the Schedule Caste certificate, the benefit given to me cannot be taken away, may be I may not be allowed any further benefit in future.

That, I reassert that I belong to Schedule Caste community and whatever action is proposed to be taken in respect of my aforesaid Schedule Caste certificate by the authority is not only illegally and arbitrary but also grossly unfair. Therefore, I request the authority to see reason and act strictly in accordance with law."

[Emphasis added]

It is quite unusual that none but the petitioner has clearly stated that by virtue of the Schedule Caste certificate whatever the benefit he was given already may not be taken away, but he may not be allowed any further benefit in future. According to this court, by implication this is an admission that the petitioner does not belong to the Schedule Caste community. The petitioner did not lay any other materials beyond the extracted part nor did he produce any record nor any further evidence to prove his status. Finally, by the order dated 28.11.2006, the SLSC has observed as under:

"The State Level Scrutiny Committee has gone through the direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, dated 4/1/06 in W.P.(C) No. 235 of 2002.

The Committee has gone through the vigilance report which indicates that Sri Ramaprasad Das, S/O Lt. Ramesh Chandra Das of College Tilla, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura does not belong to Scheduled Caste. He belongs to "Baruijibi" community. One witness namely Sri Haripada Das is the cousin of Sri Ramaprasad Das who states that they belong to "Baruijibi" community. The committee has also gone through the service attestation Form of Sri Lal Mohan Das who is the uncle (Father's brother) of Sri Ramaprasad Das which clearly shows that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste.

A show-cause notice giving an opportunity for defence was issued to Sri Ramaprasad Das vide No. F.2-134(D)(A-68)/SCW/GL/2000/5517 dated 17/7/2006 supplying copy of Vigilance reports. Sri Das did neither take any defence to prove his Scheduled Caste status nor pray for any personal hearing but cleverly tried to avoid any direct reply.

Now on careful examination of all records and reply to show cause notice the committee has come to the conclusion that Sri Ramaprasad Das does not belong to Scheduled Caste and he had obtained the Scheduled Caste certificate bearing No. 163/F.XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/93-94 dated 5/3/94 issued by Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, West Tripura by misrepresentation of fact. Accordingly, the said Scheduled Caste certificate is hereby cancelled".

[Emphasis added]

A copy of the said order was duly supplied to the petitioner and on 09.04.2007 having received the said order dated 28.11.2006 the petitioner filed a representation seeking review of that order dated 28.11.2006 asserting that the petitioner does belongs to Jalia Kaibarta community and he had relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 and B. Basavalingappa vs. D. Munichinnapa and others reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269. Though those decisions relate to some controversy about the caste status, but there does exist even a remote semblance with the present context of this case.

In the said representation, the petitioner has alleged of violating the direction as contained on those decisions, but there is no murmur in the said representation whether the respondents particularly the SLSC, has observed the guidelines of Laveti Giri or not. The SLSC while rejecting the petitioner's prayer to review the order dated 28.11.2006 had observed as follows:

"The committee has re-examined the issue and rejected the plea as there is no scope to review its decision passed on 28.11.2006."

Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that (i) the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend his status, as reflected in the questioned Schedule Caste certificate and (ii) from the reading of the evidences no prudent person can come to the inference that the petitioner does not belong to the Schedule Caste community being a member of Jalia Kaibartya community. Thus, Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel has castigated the finding returned by the SLSC that the petitioner does belong to Baruijibi community which is not recognized as the Schedule Caste community in the State of Tripura.

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that one of the cousins of the petitioner namely Haripada Das has clearly stated that the petitioner and they belong to the same community called Baruijibi and they have come of from the same place. Even another witness, who made the statement to the Vigilance Officer, namely Smt. Basanti Das has clearly stated that she belongs to Kayasta community. Smt. Basanti Das was married to Sri Satish Das who was not alive at the time of investigation. Ramaprasad Das, the petitioner is the son of Ramesh Das. Haripada Das was son of Raichand Das and he has categorically stated that his grand-father had three sons namely Nabadweep Das, Raichand Das and Adhar Das. Nabadweep Das had five sons namely Manmohan Das, Lalmohan Das, Satish Das, Ramesh Das and Pradip Das and they are his cousins. Similar statement has been made by Smt. Basanti Das by stating that her father-in-law namely Nabadweep Das had five sons namely Manmohan Das, Lalmohan Das, Satish Das, Ramesh Das and Pradip Das. Ramaprasad Das (the petitioner) is the son of Ramesh Das and, therefore, both those persons were closely related to the petitioner and their statement does carry substantial evidential value, but the petitioner as Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has pointed out, has failed to provide any rebuttal by way of adducing evidence against the finding of the Vigilance Officer and according to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

On scrutiny of the records, as produced by Mr. Majumder, learned counsel from the SLSC as well as the records produced along with the writ petition, this court is of the view that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunities and the petitioner had made all his efforts to continue with the status, but finally on the basis of the records as produced by the Vigilance Officer, the SLSC had come to the said inference. By the impugned order dated 28.11.2006, the Schedule Caste certificate of the petitioner under No. 1631/F.XII.2/SDO/SDR/TW/93/94 dated 05.03.1994 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Tripura has been cancelled.

This court even does not find any procedural infirmity in arriving at the said inference when the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge his onus by adducing evidence in respect of his status. Thus this writ petition is bound to fall through and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Records as produced by Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel be returned.