COLLECTOR, BILASPUR versus AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 13-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1045 
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR 
v. 
AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4069 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 13, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENORAN AND H. L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Articles 338(5)(b) (as originally stood) and 338-A -
c 
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes - Powers of - HELD: The power under clause (5}(b) 
of Article 338 did not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry 
in regard to the caste status o~_any particular individual, 
summon documents, and record a finding that his caste 0 
certificate is bogus or false - It -such a complaint was received 
about the deprivation of the rights and safeguards, it will have 
to refer the matter to the State Government or the authority 
concerned with verification of caste/tribal status, to take 
necessary action -
The scope of the duties of the 
E 
Commission did not involve inquiry or a,rpudication in regard 
to the rights of parties or caste status o"f the parties - The 
same is the position under Article 328-A providing for a 
separate commission for Scher;luled Tribes with identical 
duties - In the instant case, though the Commission ultimately 
F 
directed the State Government to conduct the verification of 
the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificate, it 
categorically recorded a finding that the person concerned 
had secured a false certificate - The order of the Commission, 
therefore, cannot be sustained - High Court was justified in 
setting aside the said order - Social stc:tus certificate. 
G 
Article 226 read with Articles 338 and 338-A - Writ 
petitions alleging that the person complained against had 
obtained false certificates showing him as belonging to a 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A Scheduled Tribe - Dismissed - Effect of - HELD: The fact 
that two writ petitions were filed at some point of time, 
challenging the claim of the person complained against that 
he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe may not be conclusive as 
the first writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it 
B involved disputed questions of fact which could not be gone 
into in a writ proceeding and the second writ petition was 
dismissed on the ground that investigation into the a/legations 
of forged certificates was in progress - Therefore, even though 
the Commission was not entitled to hold an inquiry and record 
c a finding that the person complained against did not belong 
to a Scheduled Tribe, having regard to clauses (5)(b) and (f) 
of Article 338, it had the power and authority to require the 
State Government or the caste verification Committee 
constituted by the State Government, to examine the caste 
0 status of the person concerned -
The High Court was, 
therefore, not justified in holding that in view of the disposal 
of earlier writ petitions, the dispute relating to tribal status of 
the person concerned, had attained some kind of finality. 
Respondent no. 6 filed a compliant before the 
E National Commission for Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes (the Commission) in 2001, alleging that 
respondent no. 1 being a Christian and not belonging to 
a Scheduled Tribe, had obtained several false caste 
certificates showing him as belonging to 'Kanwar' 
F Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a 
constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The 
Commission issued a show cause notice to respondent 
no. 1 proposing to verify his caste certificate. The 
Commission instructed its branch at Bhopal to ascertain 
G the correct position and verify the caste claim of 
respondent no. 1. The Bhopal office collected some 
material to show that respondent no. 1 belonged to 
Satnami caste (a backward class) and that he did not 
belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got 
H elected as an MLA from a reserved constituency for 
COLLECTOR, BILASPUR v. AJIT P. K. JOGI & ORS. 1047 
Scheduled Tribes, based on a false caste certificate. On 
A 
the basis of the material so collected, the Commission 
called upon respondent no. 1 to offer his explanation and 
ultimately by its order dated 16.10.2001, held that 
respondent no. 1 fraudulently claimed to belong to 
Kanwar community for the purpose of getting ST 
B 
certificate, and directed the State Government to conduct 
the verification of genuineness of the ST certificate 
obtained by respondent no. 1 and to initiate urgent 
necessary action for cancellation of his ST certificate and 
also criminal action as provided in the law and the rul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.