1 2026:CGHC:20064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2710 of 2020 1 - Devendra Barapatre S/o Late Anantram Barapatre Aged About 52 Years Working As Technician (S-8), Bhilai Steel Plant, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, House No. 561, Street- 6/b, Shanti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai Nagar, Dist. Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 490023 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (Through Its Member Secretary) Block- D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dy. Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Cell, High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Block- D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “i. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to Call for entire records pertaining to the impugned Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 ii. This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to quash the Show Cause Notice dated 09.10.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 /High Power Certification Scrutiny (Annexure P-1). iii This Hon'ble Court be kindly pleased to quash the Vigilance Report dated 03.07.2020 submitted by the Respondent No.3 /Dy. Superintendent of Police (Annexure P-2). iv. Cost of this petition be awarded to the petitioners. v. Any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions and writ/writs as may be deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is the son of late Anantram Barapatre, who was employed as a Technician in the Bhilai Steel Plant under the Steel Authority of India Limited 3 and died in harness in the year 1995. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community “Halba” and was issued a valid Social Status Certificate dated 21.07.1987 by the competent authority after following due process of law. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner was appointed in Bhilai Steel Plant on 26.07.1996 and is presently working as Technician (S-8) at Bhilai Steel Plant, District Durg, in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further the case of the petitioner that his brother, Chandra Kumar Barapatre, was also appointed in Bhilai Steel Plant, whose caste certificate was subjected to scrutiny proceedings. Initially, an enquiry conducted by the Joint Collector was set aside by this Court holding that only the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is competent to examine the genuineness of caste certificates. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated before the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, which culminated in an order dated 07.09.2019 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner’s brother. The said order is presently under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 435/2020 and has not attained finality. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued an impugned show cause notice dated 09.10.2020 by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee on the basis of a vigilance report dated 03.07.2020 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said vigilance report does not contain any independent enquiry pertaining to the petitioner and is solely based upon the earlier 4 vigilance report prepared in the case of his brother. It is alleged that without conducting any independent verification or enquiry as required under law, the respondents have proceeded against the petitioner for cancellation of his caste certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that under the statutory scheme, particularly Section 8 of the Act of 2013, cancellation of a social status certificate can only be undertaken after conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with law. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, especially Rule 20, it is mandatory for the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell) to conduct a detailed enquiry into the social status of the individual concerned. Such enquiry necessarily includes providing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and his family members, recording statements of witnesses, and collecting relevant material. Learned counsel submits that in the present case, no such enquiry has been conducted in respect of the petitioner. Instead, the respondent No. 3 has merely relied upon the vigilance report prepared in the case of the petitioner’s brother and has 5 mechanically opined that no independent enquiry is required. This approach, according to the petitioner, is wholly alien to the statutory scheme and amounts to abdication of duty by the authority concerned. It is further argued that the order passed in the case of the petitioner’s brother has itself not attained finality, as the same is under challenge before this Court. Therefore, reliance upon such report and proceedings for initiating action against the petitioner is legally untenable. The respondents, by adopting such a shortcut method, have acted in clear violation of the mandate of Rule 20(3)(e), which requires affording opportunity to the concerned individual and conducting a proper enquiry. Learned counsel contends that the impugned action suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing or participation in the enquiry has been provided to the petitioner. It is thus submitted that the vigilance report and consequential show cause notice are liable to be quashed, as the same are based on no independent material and are contrary to statutory provisions. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J. Sri Nisha vs. The Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. passed in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 23415 of 2025 vide order dated 01.04.2026, order passed by this Court in the matter of Shitala Diwan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1536 and in the matter of Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh vs. 6 Foor Corporation of India and Anr. passed in W.P.C. No. 51 of 2019 vide order dated 29.04.2019. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, premature and devoid of merit. It is submitted at the outset that the petition, as framed and filed, does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on the basis of a complaint received from the Additional Chief Vigilance Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, pursuant to which the matter was referred to the State Level Caste Certification Committee for verification of the petitioner’s social status. It is contended that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has acted strictly in accordance with law and in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, as well as the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. It is further submitted that upon scrutiny of the available material, including the vigilance report and documents, the competent authority has issued the impugned show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his social status certificate should not be cancelled. The issuance of such notice is 7 within the statutory powers of the authority and does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. Learned State counsel further submits that the present petition is directed only against a show- cause notice and not against any final order. It is a settled proposition of law that ordinarily a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a show-cause notice, as the same does not determine any rights of the parties and is only a step in the process of decision-making. The petitioner has adequate opportunity to submit his reply and place all relevant materials before the competent authority, which shall thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179, wherein it has been held that interference at the stage of show-cause notice is not warranted unless the notice is issued without jurisdiction. Further reliance is placed on Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 and Union of India v. Coastal Container Transporters Association & Others, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 446, to contend that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked at a premature stage, particularly when no final adverse order has been passed. It is also contended that the petitioner has not challenged the competency or jurisdiction of the authority issuing the show-cause notice, but has merely questioned the 8 contents thereof, which is impermissible at this stage. The issues raised by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated by the competent authority upon consideration of the reply to the show-cause notice and the material placed on record. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned notice has been issued strictly in accordance with law, without any pre-determination, and after outlining the grounds necessitating further enquiry. The petitioner has been granted full opportunity to respond, and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the writ petition, being premature and devoid of merits, be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the show-cause notice dated 09.10.2020 as well as the vigilance report dated 03.07.2020, primarily on the ground that the same have been issued without following due procedure and in violation of statutory provisions. 7. Without adverting to the merits of the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the impugned action, which is under challenge in the present petition, is only at the stage of issuance of a show-cause notice by the competent authority constituted under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, 9 Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. 8. It is well settled that a show-cause notice is only a step in the process of decision-making and does not by itself determine or affect the rights of the parties finally. The settled legal position that ordinarily writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be exercised against a show-cause notice unless the same is shown to have been issued without jurisdiction or in violation of statutory provisions of a fundamental nature. Interference at such a preliminary stage is generally discouraged, as the noticee has an adequate opportunity to submit his reply and place all relevant material before the competent authority. 9. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks inherent jurisdiction. The grievances raised by the petitioner pertain to the correctness, adequacy and manner of preparation of the vigilance report and the consequential initiation of proceedings. These are matters which can appropriately be raised by the petitioner before the competent authority in response to the show-cause notice. It is also to be noted that the proceedings before the authority are yet to culminate into a final order. The petitioner has sufficient opportunity to file a detailed reply to the show-cause notice, produce documents, and raise all permissible objections, including those relating to alleged procedural irregularities and violation of statutory provisions. The competent authority, in turn, 10 is required to consider the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that interference at this stage would be premature. However, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive reply to the impugned show-cause notice, if not already submitted. Upon receipt of such reply, the competent authority shall consider the same in its proper perspective and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without being influenced by any observations made herein. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge