1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 261 of 2020  Sandeep Kumar Ramteke S/o Ajab Rao Ramteke Aged About 42 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Q.No. 70c, Street No. 15, Smirty Nagar, Bhilai , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. The Tahsildar Durg , District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30-04-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste particularly, caste ‘Mahar’. An application was moved for issuance of the social status certificate before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg on 08.08.2018. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.09.2019 only on the 2 ground that no revenue documents prior to the year 1950 have been placed. He would further argue that the petitioner has brought this petition against the transaction description dated 21.09.2019, whereby respondent authority has demanded unnecessary documents for issuing a permanent social status certificate and rejected the application. He would also argue that according to clause 2(k) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules, 2013’) ‘Presidential Notification’ means order issued by the President under Articles 341 & 342 of the Constitution of India. He would contend that the caste of the petitioner is notified in the Presidential Notification. He would further contend that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh as his parents were residing within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh for more than 10 years. In support thereof, he places reliance on a circular dated 10.10.2022 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner could not produce the revenue documents relating to the year 1950 or earlier period and therefore, the Prescribed Authority declined to issue the social status certificate in favour of the petitioner. 3) Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 4) Chapter IV of the Rules, 2013 deals with Inquiry, Cancellation and Forfeiture of Certificates. Rule 20 of the Rules, 2013 prescribes the vigilance service empowered to conduct an enquiry with regard to the 3 social status of a person. In the absence of material documents, the report of the vigilance cell would be conclusive. 5) Taking into consideration the provisions of the Rules, 2013, particularly, Rule 20, in the opinion of this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) committed the error of law. Consequently, the transaction description dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 21.09.2019 (Annexure P/2) is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg to consider and decide the matter of the petitioner for grant of the social status certificate strictly in accordance with the Rules, 2013 after affording the due opportunity of hearing. 6) With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya