1 2025:CGHC:59904-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 906 of 2025 Ramadhar Bunkar S/o Shri Riman Prasad Bunkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Devari, Post- Pandhi, Tahsil- Masturi, Up-Tahsil- Sipat, Police Station- Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellant 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 Session 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 62 Years Occupation- Kalika Dairy Situated In Tarun Pushkar Complex, Mungeli Naka Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o 27 Kholi Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondents WA No. 909 of 2025 Ramadhar Bunkar S/o Shri Riman Prasad Bunkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Devari, Post Pandhi, Tahsil Masturi, Up Tahsil Sipat, P.S. Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G., ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Law Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan (Now Mahanadi Bhawan) Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nayab Tahsildar Seepat Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 4 - Amitabh Tiwari S/o Shri R.W. Tiwari Aged About 62 Years Occupation Kalika Dairy Situated In Tarun Pushkar Complex, Mungeli Naka Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G., (Correct Occupation Is Mentioned Here) R/o 27 Kholi Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni and Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, Advocates For Respondent/State For Private Respondent Amitabh Tiwari : : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 . 12 .202 5 1. Since the issue involved in both these appellants is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni and Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent and Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent – Amitah Tiwari. 3. By way of both these writ appeals filed under Section 2 of Sub- Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in the WPC No. 407 of 2022 and respondent No. 4 in WPC No. 329 of 2023, has challenged the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, by which both the said writ 3 petitions have been heard together and the writ petition filed by the appellant being WPC No. 407 of 2022 has been dismissed, whereas the writ petition filed by the private respondent – Amitabh Tiwari has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. In WP(C) No.329/2013, private respondent - Amitabh Tiwari has questioned the appointment of appellant - Ramadhar Bunkar on the post of “Notary”, as he obtained the said post on the basis of a false ‘Caste Certificate’ that he belongs to the “Other Backward Class” (OBC), i.e. “Mahara” by caste, while in WP(C) No.407/2022, the appellant - 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. 5. Since the issue involved in aforesaid two writ petitions is one and the same, they were being heard together by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, learned hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant being WPC No. 407 of 2022, whereas has allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent – Amitabh Tiwari being WPC No. 329 of 2023. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeals have been filed by the appellant – Ramadhar 4 Bunkar. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse and contrary to law. He further argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the caste certificate submitted by the appellant in support of his application for appointment of Notary was genuine one issued in Revenue Case No. 417B/121/02-03. He contended that the domicile certificate (Annexure A/28) and caste certificate (Annexure A/27) were initially filled up and signed by the Patwari on 15.03.2023 and thereafter, both the documents were certified and signed by the Sarpanch and thereafter the forms/certificates along with application were produced before the Tahsildar and the case was registered as Revenue Case No. 417 B/121/2002-03 and after due process the certificates were issued by the Additional Tahsildar Sipat on 21.04.2003. He further contended that in so far as the allegation that caste certificate was not issued in Revenue Case No. 417B/121/02-03 is concerned, the same is false one. In fact, the appellan was issued not only domicile certificate but also caste certificate in Revenue Case No. 417B/121/02-03. The caste of the appellant is also well mentioned in his 8th Class Mark Sheet as well as in his Ration Card. 7. Mr. Soni submitted that earlier the stand of the private respondent as well as the State was that the caste certificate submitted by the appellant was forged one and there was no reply either by the State 5 or by the private respondent that the said caste certificate was not issued by the competent authority, if they have stated the said fact in their reply, the appellant could have an opportunity to rebut the same. He further submitted that the Tahsildar is a competent authority to issue caste certificate. In this regard, he placed reliance on judgment passed by this Court in the case of San Kumar Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1631 and the case of Mrs. Geeta Ray Vs Nagendra Chandra Das & Others (WP No. 678/2001 decided on 16.06.2010). He also submitted that if there is any cloud upon the caste status of the appellant or upon the validity of the appellant’s caste certificate, the same could be verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but without verification of the caste status of the appellant, his appointment as Notary has been cancelled, and therefore, the order impugned dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse and contrary to law. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 1305/2008 decided on 15.09.2021). He lastly submitted that even if it is found that the Nayab Tahsildar was not competent to issue caste certificate, there is no fault on the part of the appellant and he cannot be subjected to suffer loss due to fault on the part of the State authority. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent – Amitabh Tiwari as well as learned Stat counsel 6 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. 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 private respondent - Amitabh Tiwari as well as the appellant- Ramadhar Bunkar, applied for the said post in the ‘prescribed form’ framed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1956 framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act, 1952. It further appears that the appellant, 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 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 7 from 21 st August, 2009. After the appointment of the appellant a Notary, a complaint (Annexure P-7) was made by the private respondent - 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 favour of the appellant 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. 11. 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 the appellant- Ramadhar Bunkar passed in the Revenue Case No.417-B/121/2002-03 showing that he belongs to the “OBC” category, was provided. 12. After receiving the aforesaid Memo, the Collector, Bilaspur has 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 8 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 appellant- 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 the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.12.2024. 13. Perusal of the said proceeding would show that the appellant - Ramadhar Bunkar appeared in the said proceeding and submitted his reply on 25.02.2012. It further appears that after holding an enquiry, the said authority, i.e. Additional Tehsildar, Seepat has submitted its enquiry report dated 27.02.2012 observing that the appellant 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 9 04.05.2012 stated that no caste certificate as such, that the appellant – Ramadhar 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 appellant – 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. 14. 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 appellant – 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. 15. 15. From the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, it is quite evident that in pursuance to the notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act, 1952 for appointment of “Notary”, the applications in the ‘prescribed form’, framed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1956, were made by the appellant - Ramadhar Bunkar as well as the private respondent – 10 Amitabh Tiwari and, the order of appointment dated 21.08.2009 was issued in favour of the appellant - 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, 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 private respondent - Amitabh Tiwari. 16. Further the learned Single Judge, relying upon the direction and/or guideline 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, and further referring to clause (b) of Section 2 of 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, has observed that the Additional Tehsildar, Seepat, who is below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner, 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. It has further observed by the learned Single Judge that as the alleged “certificate” was not found to be 11 issued by the Competent Authority, therefore, no purpose would be served for its reference to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2013, as claimed by learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondent – Amitabh Tiwari. 17. 17. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings contained in the writ appeals, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondent – Amitabh Tiwari, we are of the considered view that no illegality, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Single Judge as as to warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 18. Both the appeals are found to be devoid of merit, and accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra