AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 8 and Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9.
Both the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.566 of 2016 [Smt. Shipra Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.576 of 2016 [Sri Rajive Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment and order as on the common set of facts and law, these writ petitions are structured to challenge the orders dated 25.02.2016 cancelling their status (ST) certificates.
There is no dispute that by the order dated 25.02.2016, the State Level Scrutiny Committee [SLSC in short] has cancelled the status certificate of the petitioner in W. P.(C) No.566 of 2016 which was issued under Memorandum No.F.6(3)/SDO/ UDP/CR/79-427 dated 31.01.1981. Similarly, the status certificate of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.576 of 2016 which was issued under Memorandum No.385/F.6(5)/SDO/UDP/79 dated 16.01.1981 has been cancelled by the State Level Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 25.02.2016. The orders of cancellation as passed by the SLSC on 25.02.2016 is under challenge in both the writ petitions, as stated.
The petitioners' case in short is that the petitioners do belong to Tripuri Community being one of the communities recognized as the Scheduled Tribe (ST) for the State of Tripura by the Presidential Order, 1950 read with the Presidential Order, 1956.
On the basis of the complaint, the inquiry proceedings being No.98 of 2004 and No.72 of 2005 had commenced to verify the status certificates as referred before. The status certificates were cancelled earlier also by the SLSC and against such order, it is the undisputed fact that both the present writ petitioners namely Smt. Shipra Debbarma and Sri Rajive Debbarma preferred the writ petitions and those orders cancelling their status certificate passed by the SLSC were interfered and quashed by a learned Single Judge of this court.
By challenging that order, the State filed writ appeals being W. A. No.24 of 2014 and W. A. No.25 of 2014. By a common judgment and order dated 16.07.2015 those writ appeals along with other writ appeals were disposed of with the following common direction:
"[16] That brings us to the last contention. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the State that the matter be remanded to the SLSC because the order had been set aside on the ground that the petitioners had not been given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. This prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge and one of the main grounds which W.A. Nos. 09/2014, 10/2014, 11/2014, 12/2014, 13/2014, 14/2014, 15/2014, 16/2014, 17/2014, 18/2014, 19/2014, 20/2014, 21/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 24/2014 and 25/2014. Page 29 of 30 29 weighed with him was that in some of the cases in the rejoinders filed, the petitioners had claimed that they belong to the same clan as one Sri Santunu Debbarma who had been held to be a member of the Tripuri community by the SLSC in an earlier matter.
[17] We are afraid that this is not sufficient ground not to accept the prayer of the State and here we are in respectful disagreement with the learned Single Judge. First of all this was not the case set up in all the petitions. This was an issue which was pleaded only in rejoinder and had not been pleaded in the writ petition. Therefore, it could not be accepted to be the gospel truth. Furthermore, it is the SLSC which is the authority expected to give finding of fact and this findings of fact could not have recorded by the learned Single Judge without himself coming to the conclusion on the basis of material that the petitioners were in fact members of the same clan as Santunu Debbarma.
[18] We are not going into the merits of this claim. Some of the petitioners may be member of his clan and, therefore, may be entitled to take benefit of the fact that since Santunu Debbarma had been held to be a member of the Tripuri community and they being members of his clan are also entitled to same benefit. However, this matter shall have to be decided by the SLSC on the basis of the evidence led before it. The petitioners shall have to prove that they are not only members of the same clan as Sri Santunu Debbarma but also that they belong to the Tripuri community. The petitioners will be at liberty to prove that they are members of the clan of Santunu Debbarma. The petitioners will have to be given an opportunity to lead evidence and prove their claim and in case they lead evidence, the State shall also be entitled to lead evidence to prove the contrary. W.A. Nos. 09/2014, 10/2014, 11/2014, 12/2014, 13/2014, 14/2014, 15/2014, 16/2014, 17/2014, 18/2014, 19/2014, 20/2014, 21/2014, 22/2014, 23/2014, 24/2014 and 25/2014.
[19] Therefore, though, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the order of the SLSC was bound to be set aside, we are in respectful disagreement with regard to his finding that the matter should not be remanded to the SLSC. We, therefore allow the appeals of the State to this limited extent and remand all the cases to the SLSC who shall now proceed with the matter from the stage of the reply filed to the show cause notices. The SLSC shall permit the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer. It shall also permit the petitioners to examine any witnesses, if they so desire or to produce any other documents. In case, the petitioners lead evidence then the State shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence to the contrary. This exercise must be completed on or before 28th February, 2016. All the petitioners are directed to appear before the SLSC on 12th August, 2015.
The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the SLSC and the members of the SLSC are directed to ensure that in all cases in the future they follow the law laid down by this Court."
Accordingly, the proceeding commenced from that stage again.
By the impugned orders, again the status certificates of the writ petitioners have been cancelled by the SLSC. By filing the writ petitions, they have challenged the orders dated 25.02.2016 cancelling the status certificates.
Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Member Secretary, SLSC by issuing the notice in the inquiry proceeding No.98 of 2004 asked the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.566 of 2016 to produce documents or to adduce witness by 21.03.2016. But the SLSC passed the final order much before the said date i.e. 21.03.2016. The said final order was passed on 25.02.2016. Thus, Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the final order is in violation of the said direction passed in the writ appeals. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has urged for remanding the matters to the SLSC again.
Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that adequate opportunities were given to the writ petitioners to lay their evidence in support of their status certificate. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred the observations in the final order dated 25.02.2016 whereby it has been laid how the opportunities were given. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has further contended that, that was a mistake to issue the notice dated 16.02.2016 as the said date is in conflict with the records maintained by the SLSC. But Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that it is apparent from the face of the record that the writ petitioner of W. P.(C) No.566 of 2016 is the uterine sister of the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.576 of 2016. They are the daughter and son of one Amulya Debbarma since deceased. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel has fairly conceded that position of relation.
As such, this court is of the view that whatever way one case is decided in respect of the status of the petitioners that would definitely cover the other case. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred to a document which is a letter signed by Sri Rajive Debbarma, writ petitioner in W. P.(C) No.576 of 2016 which reads as under:
"To
The Member Secretary,
State Level Scrutiny Committee, (Director Tribal Welfare) Agartala, Tripura (West)
Subject:- Reply of Show Cause notice.
Reference:- No.29042 F.4(73)/TW/R.Cell. 2004, dated, 16.2.2004.
Sir,
With due respect I beg to inform you on the above subject and reference no. that my ST Certificate issued from SDM, Udaipur as per my father's documents. But it also fact that my social status is linked with Laskar Community which documents enclosed by you.
This is my remark of show cause notice for favour of your kind information & doing the needful please.
Yours faithfully, Rajive Debbarma
Vill. Shibnagar, P.O. Gajaria, Bishalgarh, Tripura (West)
Dated, The 4th March, 2006"
[Emphasis added]
On veracity of that letter dated 04.03.2006 there cannot be any amount of dispute as in para 13 of the writ petition being W. P.(C) No576 of 2016, it has been averred as under:
"13. That, the Petitioner submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated, 16-02-2006. In his reply, the Petitioner asserted, that, he belongs to Tripuri Community and ST Certificate was issued to him on the basis of his father's documents. As the Petitioner married a girl from Laskar Community, he stated, that, by social status, he is linked with Laskar Community."
The said averment is surprisingly different from the averment made in the letter dated 04.03.2006, Annexure-P/13 to the writ petition. This court is really shocked to notice that the averment has been laid beyond what is there in the document. If compared with the statement made in the document, it will surface that this is one of the worst kind of mis-statement before this court. The letter dated 04.03.2006 provides clearly that "............ my social status is linked with Laskar Community which documents enclosed by you." It clearly clinches that the said petitioner belongs to Laskar Community which is admittedly is not recognised as the scheduled tribe in the State of Tripura in terms of the Presidential Order, 1950 read with the Presidential Order, 1956.
This court had asked a clarification from Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners on this regard and he has fairly submitted that the said statement had been made by the said petitioner namely Sri Rajive Debbarma. In view of this, this court does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners who has repeatedly urged this court to remand the matter back for re-inquiry by giving the opportunity to the petitioner for laying down their evidence. If the uterine brother [the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.576 of 2016] has made the declaration likewise, no purpose would be served if the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.566 of 2016 is remanded. Any different decision would not surface finally.
In view of this declaration made by Sri Rajive Debbarma, the writ petitioner in W. P.(C) No.576 of 2016, there remain nothing to be further enquired into and as such this court is not inclined to hold that both the siblings are linked to Laskar Community and they do not belong to ST community.
Having held so, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order as passed earlier is vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.