JUDGMEN T : ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. Mr. Mohanta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 8th October, 2021 made by the Sub-Collector in Misc. Certificate Appeal no.01 of 2019. He submits, the Tahsildar duly issued caste certificate to his client but private opposite party no.6 filed purported appeal. The Sub-Collector had no jurisdiction to enter upon and adjudicate on the allegations made against his client since, verification of caste certificate can only be done by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. He hands up orde r dated 2nd November, 2022 made by this Bench in WP(C) no.24104 of 2022 ( Baijanti Malik vs. State of Odisha and others ) to submit, the position stands settled. Text of the order is extracted and reproduced below. “1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s caste certificate was purported to be cancelled by impugned order dated 29th August, 2022 made by the Additional Tahasildar. He relies on section 7 in Odisha Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes (Regulation of issuance and verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2012 to submit, only the Scrutiny Committee can cancel caste certificate. He relies on view of coordinate Bench by Judgment dated 20t h May, 2022 in W.P.(C) no.3373 of 2022 (Namita Sagaria vs. State of Odisha and others) saying that the Act makes it clear, only Scrutiny Committee constituted under it has been empowered to verify genuineness of caste certificate. 2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. 3. Clear jurisdictional error committed by the Tahasildar is apparent. Said office could not have cancelled the caste certificate. As such, impugned order is set aside and quashed. 4. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.” 2. Mr. Das, learned senior advocate, present in Court, submits, Odisha Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of issuance and verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2012 says under sub-section (2) in section 1 that it shall come into force on such date the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint. Clause(d) in section 2 gives meaning of competent authority as to be notified and includes all competent authorities already designated before the commencement. Clause(d) in section 2 gives meaning of competent authority as to be notified and includes all competent authorities already designated before the commencement. Section 17 says, save as otherwise provided, provisions of the Act shall be in addition to provisions of any other law for the time being in force. He submits further, in spite of probing search, he could not find any notification of appointed date, from when the Act came into operation. He submits still further, ratio decidendi in Namita Sagari a (supra) is that only the State Level Scrutiny Committee could go into verification of caste certificates and, inter alia, declare it to be fake. 3. Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of private opposite party no.6 and draws attention to order dated 24th November, 2020 made by same co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) no.27451 of 2020 (his client’s case) and submits, State had represented to Court that the Collector and District Magistrate, Nayagarh is the appellate authority to be approached. His client withdrew the writ petition and went to the Sub-Collector, who duly made impugned order. 4. Court, on requirement of further assistance from Mr. Das appoints him as amicus curiae. Query put to him is, consequence of Namit a Sagaria (supra) in the situation, where there does not appear to be notification of appointed date for coming into force of the 2012 Act. Mr. Das submits, under rule 8 in Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 it is only the competent authority, who issued the certificate, shall have the right to cancel the same and pass order for revocation of the benefits that might have been acquired by the person concerned. Rule 6 provides for the offices of the competent authority. He submits, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer mentioned at (3) in rule 6 is the Sub-Collector. However, in the case at hand, the caste certificate having had been issued by the Tahsildar, it could not have been cancelled by the Sub-Collector. It is irrelevant that the Act of 2012 has not been notified to have come into force on an appointed date because competent authority provided by the Act are to be also notified, in addition to the authorities mentioned in the sub-ordinate legislation being the Rules of 1980. 5. Mr. It is irrelevant that the Act of 2012 has not been notified to have come into force on an appointed date because competent authority provided by the Act are to be also notified, in addition to the authorities mentioned in the sub-ordinate legislation being the Rules of 1980. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate also present in Court hands up notification dated 23rd September, 2019 published by authority in the official gazette on 4th October, 2019. It appears the notification is of draft rules. It says the rules are proposed to be made in exercise of power conferred by section 18 of the 2012 Act (Odisha Act 8 of 2014). This tends to confirm that the Act of 2012 has not been notified to have come into effect on an appointed date. The rules were also notified as ‘draft’. 6. What emerges is that the cancellation by impugned order was made by an authority not sanctioned by the Rules of 1980. The Tahsildar, having issued the caste certificate to petitioner, could only have entered into a verification regarding cancellation of it and not the Sub-Collector. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. 7. Court appreciates assistance rendered by amicus curiae and Mr. Sharma. 8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.