1 / 4 2025:CGHC:45542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4757 of 2025 Santosh Kumar Das S/o Asam Ram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Tatijhariya, Post Jamirapadh P.S.- Samri Dist- Balrampur- Ramanujganj ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Office Of The Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Block D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vigilance Officer High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur ( C.G. ). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kusmi, Dist- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Cell, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased call for entire records of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 16/04/2025 (Annexure P/2), 03/07/2024 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.08 18:17:03 +0530 2 / 4 (Annexure P/3), and 30/05/2019 (Annexure P/9), in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the action of the respondent authorities whereby they have initiated proceedings to verify the caste of the petitioner and the correspondences dated 16/04/2025 (Annexure P/2), 03/07/2024 (Annexure P/3) and 30/05/2019 (Annexure P/9) issued for the verification of the social status of the petitioner and verifying the documents relied upon by the concerned authorities to issue caste certificate of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the Petitioner belongs to "Saunta" caste and in various public documents, the caste of the Petitioner was shown to be as "Saunta" which is a caste belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category and therefore accordingly the concerned authorities has issued the caste certificate in favor of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an elected sarpanch of the village tatijhariya. On 16/04/2025 the Respondent No. 4 issued letter to Patwari, Samri, Tehsil- Samri, Dist- Balrampur-ramanujganj, C.G. directing him to prepare verified family tree of the Petitioner and revert the same in two days. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 5 issued letter dated 03/07/2024 to the Respondent No. 4 directing him to elucidate about caste certificate of the Petitioner and documents relied to issue the same. 3 / 4 The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have opined that the petitioner was not found member of the Sauta Caste only on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit any revenue documents of the forefathers prior to the year 1950. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Scrutiny Committee erred in not properly appreciating the relevant documents supplied by the Petitioner in which it has been mentioned that the Petitioner belong to "saunta" Caste and wrongly relying only on the whimsical report held that the Petitioner does not belong to saunta caste. He would next contend that till date neither any adverse action against the Petitioner has been initiated nor pending before any competent authority pertaining to the election. He would next contend that as per Section 7 of Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act 2013 Act, the scrutiny Committee has only power to take cognizance upon a referral by District level Certificate Committee. However, in the present case, such a procedure has not been adopted and hence the whole proceedings of the Scrutiny committee are void and non - est in the eyes of law. He would next contend that the Scrutiny Committee was constituted and has adjudicated and passed the impugned order under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other 4 / 4 Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act " and " 2013 Rules "respectively) despite the fact that the committee was earlier constituted in the year 2011 when the act was not in force and thereafter, in the year 2011 has referred the matter to the vigilance cell for enquiry. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 7. Be that as it may, prima facie perusal of the documents would show that this petition is not maintainable because at this juncture no order has been passed against the petitioner and only on the basis of vigilance report the enquiry has been initiated which is pending before the Committee against the petitioner. In view of this there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file afresh writ petition if any cause of action arises in future. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu