1 2025:CGHC:20670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 246 of 2020 1 - Vijay Kumar Vaidya S/o Late Dashrath Vaidya, Aged About 44 Years Caste - Mahar, R/o L I G - 8/8, Nehru Nagar East 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 ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue Caste Certificate to the Petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus to provide a Permanent Caste Certificate of Schedule Caste to the petitioner on prescribed period granted under C.G. Lok Sewa -2- Guarantee Act, 2011. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) rejected the application moved by the petitioner for grant of social status certificate contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’). 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Ramteke. He would submit that the application moved by the petitioner for issuance of social status certificate has been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide Annexure P/2. He would further submit that the order is appealable according to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 2013. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the order is appealable one, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal according to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 2013 before the appropriate authority. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha