1 2025:CGHC:42696 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 329 of 2013 Reserved on 07.08.2025 Pronounced on 22.08.2025 Amitabh Tiwari S/o R.W. Tiwari Aged About 51 Years, Occupation-Advocate, R/o 27 Kholi, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Law Department, Dau Kalayan Singh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Nayab Tahildar, Seepat, Bilaspur 4 - Ramadhar Bunkar S/o Riman Prasad Bunkar, Aged About 50 Years, Caste-Vastrakar, R/o B.L. Vastrakar, Seepat, P.S. Seepat, District and Tahsil, Bilaspur (CG) ..Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate appears along with Shri Shubham Singh, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.1 to 3 : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents No. 4 : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate AND WPC No. 407 of 2022 1 - Ramadhar Bunkar S/o Shri Riman Prasad Bunkar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village- Devari, Post- Pandhi, Tahsil Masturi, Up-Tahsil- Sipat, P.S. Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.08.22 17:10:45 +0530 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Deputy Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District And Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - The Nayab Tahsildar, Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Amitabh Tiwari S/o Shri R.W. Tiwari, Aged About 59 Years, Occupation- Kalika Dairy, Situated In Tarun Pushkar Complex, Mungeli Naka Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o 27 Kholi Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) ..Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.1,2,4,5 & 6 : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents No. 3 : None For Respondent No.7 : Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate appears along with Shri Shubham Singh, Advocate Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S.Agrawal CAV Order 1. Since the issue involved in both these petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In WP(C) No.329/2013, the petitioner- Amitabh Tiwari is questioning the appointment of respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar on the post of “Notary”, as he obtained the said post on the basis of a false ‘Caste 3 Certificate’ that he belongs to the “Other Backward Class” (OBC), i.e. “Mahara” by caste, while in WP(C) No.407/2022, the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar has questioned the order impugned dated 11.10.2021, issued by respondent No.2-The Deputy Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur, whereby, he has been restrained from performing his duty as a “Notary” till the date of renewal of his licence as required under Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1952’), else he has to face the consequences required under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, 1952. 3. The core question, which, therefore, involves in these petitions is as to, Whether, the appointment of respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar on the post of “Notary” based upon the Caste Certificate issued in his favour by the Additional Tahsildar, Seepat in Revenue Case No.417- B/121/2002-03, could be held to be sustainable in the eye of law ? 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that a notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers provided under Section 3 of the Act, 1952 for the appointment of “Notary” in village Seepat, District Bilaspur. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner- Amitabh Tiwari as well as the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar, applied for the said post in the ‘prescribed form’ framed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1956’), framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act, 1952. It appears further that the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar, in his application (Annexure R-4/2), stated that he belongs to the “OBC” category and while placing reliance on his submission, based upon the 4 certificate issued by the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat in Revenue Case No.417-B/121/2002-03 that he belongs to the “OBC” category, a Certificate dated 21.08.2009 was issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, authorizing him to act as such, subject to the provisions of the Act, 1952 and the Rules, 1956 framed thereunder, for a period of 5 years, commencing with effect from 21st August, 2009. After his appointment as such, a complaint (Annexure P-7) was made by the petitioner- Amitabh Tiwari before the Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur on 22.07.2010 and also on 21.05.2012, alleging therein, that no ‘Caste Certificate’ as such was issued in his favour that he belongs to the “OBC” category, and instead, a ‘Domicile Certificate’ was, in fact, issued to him in the said proceeding by the concerned Additional Tehsildar. It is, therefore, contended by him that while playing fraud upon the government, he has succeeded to get an appointment on the post of “Notary”. His appointment is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry contemplated under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, was initiated and, the Collector, Bilaspur was directed by the Additional Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department to submit its report after holding an enquiry vide its Memo bearing No. 8622/2906/21-B/CG/2011, dated 03.12.2011 and a copy of the complaint dated 22.07.2010 along with the copy of the caste certificate of respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar passed in the Revenue Case No.417- B/121/2002-03 showing that he belongs to the “OBC” category, was provided. 6. 6. After receiving the aforesaid Memo, the Collector, Bilaspur has 5 referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur with a direction to submit its report within a period of 15 days after holding an enquiry with regard to the alleged complaint, who in turn, has marked and referred the matter to the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat, District Bilaspur and, the said Revenue Authority after receiving the said direction, has registered the matter as Case No.38B-121/2011-12, while summoning the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar for holding an enquiry vide its order sheet dated 03.02.2012. The entire enquiry proceeding was submitted by the respondent/State as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. 7. Perusal of the said proceeding would show that the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar appeared in the said proceeding and submitted his reply on 25.02.2012. It appears further that after holding an enquiry, the said authority, i.e. Additional Tehsildar, Seepat has submitted its enquiry report dated 27.02.2012 observing that he belongs to the “OBC” category, before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who in turn, while concurring with the same, has recommended the matter to the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in Case No.1284/B-121/2011-12. It is to be seen at this juncture, that since the Additional Tehsildar had not given its opinion specifically, as to whether the alleged caste (Mahara) falls within the purview of “OBC” category or not, a direction was, therefore, again issued by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, to submit its specific report. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, in turn, vide its order dated 28.03.2012 referred the matter to the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat, for submission of its specific report and, this time, the said Revenue Authority/Additional Tehsildar, Seepat vide its report dated 04.05.2012 stated that no caste certificate as such, that respondent No.4- Ramadhar 6 Bunkar belongs to the “OBC” category in the said proceeding, i.e. Revenue Case No.417-B/121/2002-03, was issued and, in fact, a “Domicile Certificate” was rather issued to him and, after receiving the said report, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) while concurring with it, has referred the matter to the Collector, Bilaspur on 02.06.2012, who in turn, while concurring with the said report, that the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar does not belong to the “OBC” category, has referred its report to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur vide its Memo dated 03.08.2012. 8. 8. After receiving the aforesaid report, it was opined by the State Government vide its Order/Memo impugned dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P- 1), filed in WP(C) No. 407/2022, that the alleged certificate is prima facie a false and fabricated one and, accordingly, the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar has been restrained to act as a “Notary” till the renewal of his licence, else a proceeding as contemplated under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, 1952 would be initiated for the contravention of Section 9 of the said Act, 1952. 9. What is, therefore, reflected from the facts, as observed herein-above, that in pursuance to the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act, 1952 for appointment of “Notary”, the application in the ‘prescribed form’, framed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1956, was made by the petitioner – Amitabh Tiwari as well as the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar and, the order of appointment dated 21.08.2009 was issued in favour of the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar, authorizing him to act as a “Notary” while considering his caste certificate, issued by Additional Tehsildar, Seepat in Revenue Case No.417-B/121/2002-03, 7 falling under the category of “OBC”, and the same was found to be a forged and fabricated one by the State Government vide its Order/Memo dated 11.10.2021 in an enquiry held in exercise of the powers provided under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1956, based upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner- Amitabh Tiwari. 10. Be that as it may, it is to be seen at this juncture that much prior to the issuance of the alleged certificate by the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat in the said Revenue Case No.417-B/121/2002-03, a direction and/or guideline was issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 that the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. The relevant observations made to this effect at para 13 read as under :- “13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the 8 guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2 to 15 xxx xxx xxx ” 11. Much after the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, an Act, known as The Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’) came into force with effect from 29.04.2013, wherein, clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, 2013 defines the “Competent Authority” who has to issue a Social Status Certificate for such area or for such purposes as may be specified in the said Notification and, procedure for issuance of Social Status Certificate is provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2013. The said provision is relevant for the purpose which reads as under :- “4. Procedure for Issuance of Social States Certificate.-(1) The Competent Authority, may on receipt of an application under Section 3 and after making such inquiry as may be prescribed issue a Social Status Certificate : Provided that where the competent authority comes to a conclusion that there are sufficient reasons for rejecting the application for such certificate, it shall record 9 the reasons of rejection in writing and inform the applicant accordingly. (2) A Social Status Certificate issued by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of this Section, shall be a document of permanent nature, the validity of which shall not be limited by time: Provided that duplicate copy of the Social Status Certificate may be issued by competent authority only when the applicant declares the loss of the original certificate. (3) Social Status Certification issued by an person, officer or authority other than the Competent Authority shall not be accepted for the purpose of any public employment, admission to an educational institution or for availing any benefit accruing to the Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. 12. A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of the aforesaid provision would show that if a Social Status Certificate is issued by a person, officer or authority other than the “Competent Authority” then it shall not be accepted for availing any benefit accruing to the Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. 13. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, it is, thus, evident that the Caste Certificate shall be issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner, but, in any case, it cannot be issued by the officer below the rank of the said officers. Therefore, the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat, who is below the rank of those officers, cannot be held to be a Competent Officer to issue such a certificate and by virtue of the aforesaid provision, it can neither be accepted nor any reliance could be placed upon it. 10 14. Although, it was prayed by Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar for the reference of the alleged certificate to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2013, but since, as observed herein-above, the alleged “certificate” was not found to be issued by the Competent Authority, therefore, no purpose would be served for its reference to the said Committee, as claimed by him. 15. In view of the aforesaid background, the appointment of the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar as a “Notary” by the State Government on 21.08.2009 under the Act, 1952 and the Rules, 1956 framed thereunder, authorizing him to act as such, based upon the alleged “OBC” caste certificate, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 16. Consequently, the petition, being WP(C) No.329/2013 “Amitabh Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others”, filed by the petitioner- Amitabh Tiwari is allowed, while WP(C) No.407/2022 “Ramadhar Bunkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others”, filed by the respondent No.4- Ramadhar Bunkar, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita