Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4069 OF 2008

Collector, Bilaspur ………Appellant

Vs.  

Ajit P. K. Jogi & Ors. …….Respondents  

WITH

Civil Appeal No.4074 of 2008 Civil Appeal No.4079 of 2008 Civil Appeal No.4082 of 2008

J U D G M E N T

R. V. Raveendran J.  

These four appeals  by special  leave are filed against  the judgment  

dated 15.12.2006 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP No.2080 of 2011.  

As the ranks of  parties  differ,  they are  referred to  by their  ranks in  CA  

No.4069/2008.

2. The first  respondent (Ajit  P.K. Jogi) claimed that he belonged to a  

tribal  community  known  as  ‘Kanwar’,  a  notified  Scheduled  Tribe.  He  

obtained social status/caste certificates from time to time, showing him as  

belonging  to  Kanwar-Scheduled  Tribe,  that  is,  certificate  dated  6.6.1967  

from the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 27.2.1984  

by the Naib Tehsildar, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, certificate dated 6.3.1986 by  

the  Tehsildar,  Pendra  Road,  certificate  dated  12.1.1993  by  the  Naib  

Tehsildar,  Pendra  Road,  Bilaspur,  certificate  dated  11.8.1999  by  Naib  

Tehsildar,  Indore,  certificate  dated  8.1.2001  from  the  Addl.  Collector,  

Bilaspur and certificate dated 30.9.2003 by Addl. Collector, Bilaspur. The  

first  respondent  was  elected  twice  to  Rajya  Sabha  and  contested  two  

parliamentary  elections  from  Raigarh  and  Shahdol  constituencies.  He  

successfully contested from Marwahi Vidhan Sabha constituency reserved  

for Scheduled Tribes in 1991. On 1.11.2000, when the State of Chhattisgarh  

came into existence, the first respondent became its first Chief Minister and  

served in that capacity till December, 2002.  

3. In the year 2001, the sixth respondent filed a complaint  before the  

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (the third  

respondent herein, for short ‘Commission’) alleging that the first respondent  

2

was a Christian and that he did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe; and that he  

had obtained several  false  caste  certificates showing him as belonging to  

‘Kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe and had contested elections from a constituency  

reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He requested that appropriate action be taken  

in that behalf.  

4. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the first respondent  

proposing  to  verify  his  caste  certificate.  The  Commission  referred  the  

complaint  received  from  the  sixth  respondent  to  the  Chief  Secretary,  

Government  of  Chhattisgarh  on 29.1.2001.  The state  government  (fourth  

respondent) responded to the Commission stating that it had constituted a  

committee  dated  27.2.2001  for  verification  of  caste  certificates  and  the  

reference  received  from  the  Commission   had  been  transmitted  to  the  

Principal  Secretary,  Department  for  Welfare  of  SCs,  STs,  OBCs  and  

Minorities Welfare (fifth respondent) for necessary verification through the  

said Committee. The Commission thereafter summoned the Chief Secretary  

of  Chhattisgarh  to  appear  before  the  Commission  on  24.1.2001  with  all  

documents  relating  to  the  caste  status  of  the  Chief  Minister  (first  

respondent). The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled  

Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department to appear on 18.5.2011  

3

with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by  

the  state  government  relating  to  verification  of  caste  certificates.  He  

submitted that having regard to the provision made by the state government  

for verification of caste certificate by a scrutiny committee, the Commission  

did not  have jurisdiction to  verify the caste  certificate  issued to  the first  

respondent. The Commission felt that there was want of co-operation from  

the  Government  of  Chhattisgarh  and  instructed  its  branch  at  Bhopal  to  

ascertain  the  correct  position  and  verify  the  caste  claim  of  the  first  

respondent. Apparently, the Bhopal office collected some material to show  

that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste (a backward class) and  

that he did not belong to Kanwar Scheduled Tribe and that he got elected as  

a MLA from a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes, based on a false  

caste  certificate.  On  the  basis  of  alleged  material  so  collected,  the  

Commission called upon the first respondent, vide notice dated 26.5.2001 to  

offer his explanation and also appear before the Commission on 30.9.2001  

with necessary documents. One Mr. R. N. Sharma, Chief Legal Adviser to  

the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh appeared on behalf of the first respondent  

and submitted a reply dated 12.9.2001 to the notice dated 26.5.2001. Several  

documents were furnished and written submissions were also filed.  

4

5. The Commission made an order dated 16.10.2001. We extract below  

the preamble and operative portion of the said order :  

“In the matter of  :  Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.  Jogi,  S/o  Shri  K.P.  Jogi,  Village  Sarbahra,  Tehsil  Pendra Road, District Bilaspur.  

xxxxx xxxxxx

Taking into consideration the available evidence as discussed above, the  commission is of the considered view that Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi has been  fraudulently claiming to belong to Kanwar community for the purpose of  getting ST certificate,  although he and his ancestors belong to Satnami  caste, which is included in the SC list of the State. However, as Shri Ajit   P.K. Jogi’s grandfather appears to have got converted to Christianity, he  was not eligible for concessions/benefits available to SCs also. The state  government  is,  therefore,  called  upon  to  conduct  the  verification  of  genuineness of the ST certificate obtained by Shri APK Jogi and to initiate  urgent  necessary  action  for  cancellation  of  his  ST  certificate  and  also  criminal action as provided in the law and the rules. A report on the action  taken may be submitted to the Commission within 30 days.”  

6. The said order was challenged by the first respondent by filing WP  

No.2080 of 2001 in the Chhattisgarh High Court. A Division Bench of the  

High  Court  by  the  impugned  order  dated  15.12.2006  allowed  the  writ  

petition.  It  held  that  the  complaint  of  the  sixth  respondent  before  the  

Commission questioning the social status of first respondent was politically  

motivated, that the first respondent had been openly claiming the status of  a  

person belonging to a scheduled tribe, at least from the year 1967 and had  

obtained several certificates certifying his status and had contested several  

elections  as  a  person belonging to  a  scheduled  tribe,  that  his  status  was  

5

challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988  

and WP No.1039 of 2001 and the said petitions had been dismissed and as  

the decisions of the High Court were judgments in rem, the Commission  

could not have ignored those judgments. The High Court also held that the  

Commission had violated the principles of natural justice as it had collected  

material  behind  the  back  of  the  first  respondent  and  recorded  adverse  

findings without disclosing the material collected by it to the first respondent  

and without giving an opportunity to the first respondent, to have his say on  

such material.  The court also passed strong observations against the sixth  

respondent  stating  that  the  entire  exercise  was  politically  motivated.  

Consequently, it allowed the writ petition, quashed the entire proceedings of  

the Commission as also the findings in the order dated 16.10.2001 as being  

void and inoperative.  

7. The  High  Court  also  directed  the  first  respondent  to  pay  cost  of  

Rs.10,000/-  to  the  first  respondent.  Further,  it  directed  the  State  of  

Chhattisgarh and the Commission to file memo of calculations giving full  

details of the actual cost incurred by them in resisting the said writ petition  

and directed the sixth respondent to pay the said cost incurred by the State of  

Chhattisgarh and the Commission.   

6

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Chhattisgarh has  

filed CA No.4082 of 2008, the Collector, Bilaspur has filed CA No.4069 of  

2008, the sixth respondent filed CA No. 4079 of 2008 and four interveners  

in the High Court filed CA No. 4074 of 2008. On the contentions raised, the  

following questions arise for our consideration :  

(i) Whether  the  Commission  had  the  jurisdiction  to  entertain  

complaints about the genuineness of caste certificate of a particular  

individual and pronounce upon the validity of the caste certificate  

and the caste status of such person?

(ii) Whether the High Court was justified in holding that in view of  

two earlier decisions of the High Court in WP No.1417 of 1988  

decided  on  24.7.1989  and  WP  No.1039  of  2001  decided  on  

24.7.2001, challenging the caste status of the first respondent, his  

caste status had attained some kind of finality.  

(iii) Whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on  

the part of the Commission as held by the High Court?

(iv) Whether  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  holding  that  the  

proceedings  before  the  Commission  at  the  instance  of  sixth  

respondent were politically motivated?

7

Re : Question (i)  

8. Article 338 of the Constitution of India mandates the constitution of a  

National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Article 338A mandates the  

constitution of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. At the relevant  

point of time, that is in the year 2001, Article 338A was not in existence and  

the  unamended  Article  338  provided  for  a  National  Commission  for  

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Clause (5) of unamended Article  

338 enumerated the duties of the Commission, relevant portions of which  

are extracted below :  

“(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission---   (a) To investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards   provided  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  under  the   Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under   any  order  of  the  Government  and  to  evaluate  the  working  of  such   safeguards;

(b)      To inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation   of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;

(c) To  participate  and  advise  on  the  planning  process  of  socio- economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and  to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any  State;  

(d) To present to the President, annually and at such other times as the  Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;  

(e) To make in such reports recommendations as to the measures that  should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation  of  those safeguards  and other  measures  for the protection,  welfare and  socio-economic  development  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes and;  

8

(f)         To discharge such other functions in relation to the protection,   welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and   Scheduled Tribes as the President may, subject to the provisions of any   law made by Parliament, by rule specify.   (6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each  House  of  Parliament  along  with  a  memorandum explaining  the  action  taken  or  proposed to  be  taken on the  recommendations  relating  to  the  Union  and  the  reasons  for  the  non-acceptance,  if  any,  of  any of  such  recommendations.

(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter  with which any State  Government  is  concerned,  a  copy of  such report  shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be  laid  before  the  Legislature  of  the  State  along  with  a  memorandum  explaining  the  action  taken  or  proposed  to  be  taken  on  the  recommendations  relating  to  the  State  and  the  reasons  for  the  non- acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.    (8) The Commission shall, while investigating the matters referred to  in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause  (b) of clause 5, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in  particular in respect of the following matters, namely :--   

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any  part of India and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents; (c)     receiving evidence on affidavits; (d)    requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court  

or office; (e)    issuing  summons/communications  for  the  examination  of  

witnesses and documents; (f)    any other matter which the President may by rule determine.

   (9) The  Union  and  every  State  Government  shall  consult  the  Commission on all major policy matters affecting and Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes.

xxxxxx xxxxxxx” (emphasis supplied)  

9

10. The  appellants  and  the  Commission  relied  upon  sub-clause  (b)  of  

clause (5)  of  Article  338 which provided that  it  shall  be the duty of  the  

Commission to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation  

of  rights  and safeguards  to scheduled castes  and scheduled tribes,  as  the  

source of power to the Commission to enquire into and decide upon the  

caste status of any individual claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe. It was  

submitted that if persons not belonging to scheduled tribes falsely claim the  

status of scheduled tribes, they would thereby be depriving the rights and  

benefits  available  to  genuine  scheduled  tribes  and  consequently,  when  a  

specific complaint is received alleging that any particular person had made a  

false  claim  of  being  a  person  belonging  to  a  scheduled  tribe,  the  

Commission was duty bond to enquire into the such specific complaint as it  

related to deprivation of rights and safeguards of scheduled tribes. It was  

further argued that it had examined and decided upon the caste status of the  

first respondent, after examining the material collected by it and after giving  

an  opportunity  to  the  first  respondent  to  prove  that  he  belonged  to  a  

scheduled tribe, and it had come to a conclusion that the first respondent had  

fraudulently claimed that he belonged to the scheduled tribe of Kanwar and  

had obtained false certificate to that effect; and that the first respondent was  

a  Christian,  who  did  not  belong  to  a  scheduled  tribe  and  therefore,  not  

10

eligible to enjoy the reservation and other benefits extended to scheduled  

tribes. It was also pointed out that the Commission had ultimately directed  

the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the  

ST  certificate  obtained  by  the  first  respondent  and  initiate  action  for  

cancellation of his ST certificate and consequently, initiate criminal action in  

accordance with law.  

11. Dealing with the powers of a similar (State) Commission for Women,  

this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Orissa State Commission for Women   

[2010 (8) SCC 633], held as under :

“Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that  once  a  power  has  been  given  to  the  State  Commission  to  receive  complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their  rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorized to decide these  complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section  10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned Counsel. The provision contained in  Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive  complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of  such  complaints  take  up  the  matter  with  the  authorities  concerned  for  appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State  Commission  with  the  power  to  take  up  the  role  of  a  court  or  an  adjudicatory tribunal  and determine  the rights  of  the parties.  The State  Commission  is  not  a  tribunal  discharging  the  functions  of  a  judicial  character or a court.”  

12. Dealing  with  the  powers  of  the  Chief  Commissioner  and  

Commissioners  under  the  persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal  Opportunity,  

11

Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act and the Rules thereunder,  

this Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin – 2010 (4) SCC  

368, held as follows:  

“It  is  evident  from  the  said  provisions,  that  neither  the  Chief  Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities  Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other  interim directions.  The fact  that  the Disabilities  Act  clothes  them with  certain  powers  of  a  civil  court  for  discharge  of  their  functions  (which  include power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume  the other  powers  of  a  civil  court  which are not  vested in  them by the  provisions of the Disabilities Act.”  

13. It  is  evident  from  Article  338  as  it  originally  stood,  that  the  

Commission was constituted to protect and safeguard the persons belonging  

to  scheduled  castes  and  scheduled  tribes  by  ensuring  :  (i)  anti-

discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way reservation and empowerment,  

and (iii) redressal of grievances.   The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338  

did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel  

a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate.  

Having  regard  to  the  sub-clause  (b)  of  clause  (5)  of  Article  338,  the  

Commission  could  no  doubt  entertain  and  enquire  into  any  specific  

complaint  about  deprivation  of  any  rights  and  safeguards  of  Scheduled  

Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire  

into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or State  

Government  requiring  effective  implementation  of  the  safeguards  and  

12

measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of  

scheduled  tribes.  This  power  to  enquire  into  ‘deprivation  of  rights  and  

safeguards of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes’ did not include the  

power  to  enquire  into  and decide  the  caste/tribe  status  of  any  particular  

individual.  In  fact,  as  there  was  no  effective  mechanism  to  verify  the  

caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil vs.   

Addl.  Commissioner  (Tribal  Development) –  1994 (6)  SCC 241 directed  

constitution of scrutiny committees.  

14. In Madhuri Patil, this Court held that on account of false social status  

certificates being obtained by unscrupulous individuals,  and cornering the  

benefits  meant  for  SCs  and  STs,  persons  who  genuinely  belonged  to  

scheduled castes/scheduled tribes were denied the benefit of reservation in  

posts/seats and other benefits extended to SCs and STs. It therefore, felt that  

there was a need to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status  

certificate, their scrutiny and approval and issued the following directions :  

“1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to  the  Revenue-Sub-Divisional  Officer  and  Deputy  Collector  or  Deputy  Commissioner and the certificate shall  be issued by such Officer rather  than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

4.  All  the  State  Governments  shall  constitute  a  Committee  of  three  officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher  in  rank of  the  Director  of  the  concerned department,  (II)  the Director,  

13

Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may,  and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate  knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.  In the case the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate  knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups  of tribes or tribal communities.

5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior  Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of  Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector  would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the  candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or  city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer  should  personally  verify  and  collect  all  the  facts  of  the  social  status  claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He  also  should  examine  the  school  records,  birth  registration,  if  any.  He  should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to  their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social  status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together  with  all  particulars  as  envisaged  in  the  proforma,  in  particular,  of  the  Scheduled  Tribes  relating  to  their  peculiar  anthropological  and  ethnological  traits,  deities,  rituals,  customs,  mode  of  marriage,  death  ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes  or tribes or tribal communities etc.

6.  The Director  concerned,  on receipt  of  the report  from the vigilance  officer  if  he  found  the  claim  for  social  status  to  be  "not  genuine"  or  "doubtful"  or  spurious  or  falsely  or  wrongly  claimed,  the  Director  concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report  of  the  vigilance  officer  to  the  candidate  by  a  registered  post  with  acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational  institution in which the candidate is studying or employed……….

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably  by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months.  If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or  spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and  confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the  date  of  the  conclusion  of  the  proceedings  the  result  of  enquiry  to  the  parent/guardian and the applicant.

xxxx xxxx”

14

This Court thus formulated a scheme for verification of tribal status and held  

that  any  application  for  verification  of  tribal  status  as  a  scheduled  tribe  

should be carried out by such Committees. The verification of the validity of  

caste certificates and determination of the caste status should therefore be  

done  by  the  Scrutiny  Committees  constituted  as  per  the  directions  in  

Madhuri  Patil or  in  terms  of  any  statute  made  by  the  appropriate  

government in that behalf.  

15. It  is  true  that  the  Commission  had  ultimately  directed  the  state  

government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the scheduled  

tribe certificate  obtained by the first  respondent and to initiate action for  

cancellation  of  his  scheduled  tribe certificate  and also  criminal  action as  

provided in law and submit an action taken report to the Commission within  

30 days. But this is preceded by a very lengthy order which categorically  

records a finding that first respondent had secured a false certificate. The  

order  starts  with  the  following  caption:  “Verification  of  community  

certificate of Shri Ajit P.K.Jogi”. The order discloses that it had summoned  

various senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent to  

produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The order further states  

that  it  had  held  independent  inquiry  through  its  State  office  to  collect  

15

evidence to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not  

to Kanwar community. The Commission has dealt with the objection that it  

had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an individual, referred to  

its duties and functions in detail and concluded thus :

“Thus the Commission is fully empowered to enquire into any complaint  relating to bogus community certificate which would otherwise have the  effect of depriving the genuine ST candidates from getting admissions to  professional courses etc.  or appointments to posts reserved for them or  from election to the elected bodies from the constituencies reserved for  them.  Since  its  inception,  the  Commission  has  taken  up  enquiries  in  thousands of cases of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly  or  through  its  State  Offices  or  the  concerned  agencies  of  the  State  Governments  and  about  800  such  cases  are  still  pending  with  the  Commission which are being pursued.

x x x x x

It  is therefore clear that the objections raised by the Respondent is not  sustainable and the Commission is well within its rights to enquire into the  matter to fine the genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri  APK Jogi, which enabled him to become an MLA from a constituency  reserved for the STs.”      

The  order  then  considers  the  material  in  great  detail  and  records  clear  

finding that the first respondent had obtained a false certificate, vide para 24  

which is extracted below :  

“Based  on the  evidence  available  before  the  Commission,  it  is  clearly  established that  Late  Shri  Girdhari  Jogi,  while  Shri  Sinati  Jogi and his  progeny continued to claim the benefit of being SCs as Satnami caste, the  grandfather  of  Shri  A.P.K  Jogi,  Shri  Dulare  Jogi  and  his  progeny  converted  to  Christianity  and  thus  became  ineligible  for  the  benefits  available to the Scheduled Castes. (The genealogical tree of the family is  

16

enclosed  for  ready  reference).  However,  Shri  Ajit  P.  K.  Jogi,  by  fraudulently claiming to belong to ‘Kanwar’ community managed to get a  ST  certificate  in  1967  from  Additional  Tehsildar,  Pendra  Road.  This  certificate  was  not  registered  in  the  Revenue  records  and  was  thus  a  legally invalid document Shri Ajit P. K. Jogi, who had subsequently joined  Indian  Police  Service  and  Indian  Administrative  Service,  used  his  influence  to  get  the  community  certificate  as  ST  and  on  his  own  admission, contented for parliamentary elections and Assembly elections  from constituencies reserved for STs.”  

16. It is only after recording the said findings, the Commission directed  

the State government to verify the genuineness of the ST certificate obtained  

by first respondent and initiate action for cancellation of the certificate and  

also initiate criminal action. All these were unwarranted. As noticed above,  

the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 (or under any of the other sub-

clauses of clause 5 of Article 338) did not entitle the Commission to hold an  

inquiry in regard to the caste status of any particular individual, summon  

documents, and record a finding that his caste certificate is bogus or false. If  

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. It can certainly follow up the matter with the State Government or  

such  authority  dealing  with  the  matter  to  ensure  that  the  complaint  is  

inquired into and appropriate decision is taken. If the State Government or  

the authorities  did not  take action,  the Commission could either  itself  or  

17

through the affected persons, initiate legal action to ensure that there is a  

proper  verification  of  the  caste  certificate,  but  it  cannot  undertake  the  

exercise itself, as has been done in this case. The contention that there was  

sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of  

the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or  

adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties.  

The same is the position even under Article 338A (which was subsequently  

inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with  

identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained.  

The  High  Court  was  justified  in  setting  aside  the  said  order  dated  

16.10.2001.

Re : Questions (ii) to (iv)

17. This does not mean that the caste certificates of the first respondent  

are  not  to  be  verified.  The  appellants  allege  that  among  the  certificates  

obtained  by  the  first  respondent,  the  certificates  dated  6.6.1967  and  

27.2.1984 were issued by the Naib Tehsildar, who at the relevant point of  

time did not have the authority to issue such certificates. With reference to  

the certificate dated 27.2.1984, it  is  also contended that  the case number  

mentioned pertains to grant of an explosive licence to one Gokul Prasad. In  

18

regard to certificates dated 6.3.1986 and 12.1.1993, it is pointed out that no  

case  number  had  been  mentioned.  In  regard  to  the  certificate  dated  

11.8.1999, it is pointed out that Naib Tehsildar at Indore, was not competent  

to issue such a certificate in regard to a resident of Pendra Road, Bilaspur. In  

regard to certificates dated 8.1.2001 and 20.9.2003 issued by the Additional  

Collector,  Bilaspur,  it  is  pointed  out  that  the  certificates  are  not  in  the  

required  form  and  not  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  guidelines  for  

issuance  of  certificates.  It  is  also  alleged  that  on  8.4.1977,  the  Addl.  

Tehsildar, Pendra Road had rejected the application of first respondent for  

issue of a certificate showing that he belonged to ‘kanwar’ Scheduled Tribe.  

It is also alleged that father and mother of first respondent had entered into  

sale  transactions  on  12.8.1964,  21.9.1967  and  25.7.1979  describing  

themselves as Christians and had not sought permission under section 165(6)  

of MPLR Code which was mandatory, if they were tribals. We have referred  

to these averments only to point out that serious allegations were made in  

regard to the certificates obtained by the first respondent and the tribal status  

claimed  by  him.  The  certificates  have  never  undergone  a  scrutiny  by  a  

properly constituted authority. The fact that two writ petitions were filed at  

some point of time, challenging the claim of first respondent that he belongs  

to a scheduled tribe may not be conclusive as the first  writ  petition was  

19

dismissed on the ground that it 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  allegations  of  forged  

certificates was in progress. Therefore even though the Commission was not  

entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding  that first respondent did not  

belong to a scheduled tribe, having regard to clause 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 status claimed by the first respondent. The correspondence  

initiated  by  the  Commission  clearly  showed  a  request/direction  for  

verification of the caste of the first respondent was made by the Commission  

and the state government had responded by stating that the claim of first  

respondent that he belonged to a scheduled tribe and the validity of social  

status certificates would be verified by the Scrutiny Committee.  

18. The High Court was therefore not justified in holding that in view of  

the disposal of earlier writ petitions by the High Court, the dispute relating  

to tribal status of the first respondent had attained some kind of finality. On  

the  facts  and circumstances,  there  was also  no justification  for  the  High  

Court  to either  term the application given by the sixth respondent  to the  

Commission as politically motivated or direct the State Government and the  

20

Commission  to  calculate  the  actual  expenses  incurred  in  regard  to  the  

inquiry and recover the same from the sixth respondent.  

Conclusion  

19. We therefore allow these appeals in part as under :

(i) The order of the High Court dated 15.12.2006 to the extent it quashes  

the order dated 16.10.2001 of the Commission, is upheld.  

(ii) The adverse observations by the High Court about the complaint by  

the sixth respondent, the inquiry by the Commission, and the stand of the  

State Government and the Collector before the High Court, being politically  

motivated, are set aside.  

(iii) The  direction  to  the  State  Government  and  the  Commission  to  

calculate  the  actual  cost  incurred  in  prosecuting  the  writ  petition  and  

directing the sixth respondent to pay the actual costs plus Rs.10,000 is set  

aside.  

(iv) In terms of the direction of the Commission, the State Government  

through  a  duly  constituted  Scrutiny  Committee  shall  now undertake  the  

verification/scrutiny of the social status (tribal) certificates issued to the first  

21

respondent  showing  him as  belonging  to  ‘Kanwar’  Scheduled  Tribe  and  

decide  the  matter  after  giving  due  opportunity  to  the  first  respondent,  

uninfluenced by any observations by the Commission, High Court or this  

Court. The State Government/concerned authorities shall be entitled to take  

consequential  action  on  the  basis  of  the  order/report  of  the  Scrutiny  

Committee.  

………………………………J [R. V. Raveendran]

………………………………J [H. L. Dattu]

New Delhi;  October 13, 2011.            

22