1 2026:CGHC:21901 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2319 of 2026 1 - Abhishek Tainguriya S/o Surendra Singh Tainguriya Aged About 22 Years Resident Of A/44, Mungeli Wale Mahraj Ke Piche, Agrawal Colony, House No. 127, Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Tahsildar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 set-aside the letter dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 direct the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the application moved by the petitioner for issuance of social status certificate after examining the same and due verification in accordance with law within stipulated period. 10.4 direct the respondent No. 3 to issue caste certificate (Social Status Certificate) in favour of the petitioner within stipulated period. 10.5 grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts && circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.6 Cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the grandfather of the present petitioner, namely late Sabharam, was originally a resident of District Morena, Madhya Pradesh, and was employed on the post of Deputy Director in the Local Fund Audit Department in the State 3 of Chhattisgarh, from where he ultimately retired from service during the year 2006–2007; after his retirement, he permanently settled at Bilaspur along with his family members, and the father of the petitioner, who is also residing at Bilaspur, is presently serving on the post of Senior Auditor in the State Audit Department, Government of Chhattisgarh; it is submitted that the petitioner and his siblings were born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh and are pursuing their education therein, and the present petitioner, being the eldest son of the family, is presently pursuing Bachelor of Engineering in the State of Chhattisgarh; it is further submitted that earlier a temporary caste certificate had already been issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority after due verification of his caste status, however, subsequently when the petitioner applied for issuance of a permanent caste certificate/social status certificate along with all requisite documents before the competent authority under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 on 28.03.2026, the said application was not duly considered by respondent No. 3 and instead the same was returned on 03.04.2026 through the Chhattisgarh e-District portal vide Annexure P/1 solely on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished the Missal Bandobast record of the year 1950 pertaining to the State of Chhattisgarh; according to the petitioner, the aforesaid action of respondent No. 3 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, 4 and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013, and is further violative of the law and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner as well as various judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court governing the issuance and verification of caste certificates; being aggrieved by the illegal rejection/return of his application, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly submitted an online application seeking issuance of a Social Status Certificate before the competent authority along with all requisite documents; however, the said application was neither properly considered nor decided by the authorities concerned and instead the petitioner was merely directed to appear along with original documents for verification purposes; it is further submitted that during the course of interaction with the authorities, the petitioner was orally informed that unless and until documents pertaining to a period prior to the year 1950 are produced, the Social Status Certificate would not be granted in his favour; learned counsel contends that such insistence is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions and settled legal principles governing issuance of caste and social status certificates; it is further argued that even assuming the authorities were not satisfied with the documents furnished by the petitioner, they were at least under a legal 5 obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order either accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law, but instead of adjudicating the application on merits, the authorities simply returned the application without any proper determination, which action is wholly unsustainable and not in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner ought to approach the competent authorities along with all original and supporting documents required for proper verification of his claim, and if the petitioner appears before the concerned authority and furnishes the requisite documents, there is no reason as to why his application for issuance of Social Status Certificate would not be duly considered and decided in accordance with law; it is further submitted that upon such consideration, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate reasoned order either in favour of the petitioner or against him, depending upon the material and documents produced before it. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 3, namely the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, to duly consider the application submitted by the petitioner along with all supporting and relevant documents 6 produced in support of his claim, and thereafter to pass an appropriate reasoned order strictly in accordance with law after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not passed any orders on merit and the concerned respondent authority is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned respondent authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in turn, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of 30 days. 9. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat