Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Utpal Mahato vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 May, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
1

14.05.2013
W.P. 3578 (W) of 2013
Utpal Mahato
vs.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Murari Mohan Das
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sardar
.........for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta
Mr Amrita Lal Chatterjee
......for the State.

1) The petitioner claims that he belongs to Bedia tribe,

which is recognized as a scheduled tribe under the
Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. The certificate issued
by
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer,
Kalyani,

Nadia

2)

pilots.

The

and

in

that

was

(hereafter the SDO) on 09.01.2008 is relied on in

this behalf.
A notice was published in the 'Karmakhetra'
conveying that the Government of India would
provide scholarship for scheduled tribe candidates
who
wish
to
become
commercial
petitioner
pursuance

responded
of

to
the

such

notice

selection

process

conducted, he was duly selected along with 4 other

scheduled tribe candidates for grant of scholarship
to pursue the Commercial Pilot Licence Course for
the year 2008-2009 (hereafter the said course).
2

3)
The
selection
was
followed
various
correspondences
issued
by
concerned
departments for ascertaining the genuineness of the
petitioner's claim that he belongs to a scheduled
tribe. Insofar as the documents annexed to the writ
petition are concerned, it is clear that the certificate
issued in his favour was found to be genuine

by
the

to

meaning

thereby

that

he

was

entitled

scholarship. However, despite repeated requests by

the petitioner the amount constituting scholarship
was not released in
his
favour resulting
in
presentation of this writ petition before this Court
on February 5, 2013 seeking, inter alia, the
following main relief:
"a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus shall
not be issued commanding the respondents their

men agents servants and subordinates mainly the respondent No. 3 to release amounting Rs.
23,85,000/- being the scholarship money granted by the Government of India under the Post
Matric Scholarship of the petitioner being Scheduled Tribe candidate for pursuing Pilot
License Training Course as the petitioner has been selected by the District General of Civil
Aviation and petitioner got admission in Chimes Aviation Academy i.e. M/S Chimes Aviation
Pvt. Ltd."
4) In course of admission hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Das, learned advocate for the
petitioner contended that the respondents had acted illegally and in an arbitrary manner by
not releasing the scholarship amount to which the petitioner is entitled. It was submitted by
him that although the petitioner was selected for the said course, more than 4 years were
allowed to lapse because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondents. Despite
confirmation that the petitioner's certificate was genuine, the respondents demonstrated utter
apathy and indifference in not coming to the aid of a socially disadvantaged person, who had
otherwise qualified for the award of scholarship. He prayed for immediate orders on the
respondents to release the scholarship amount to enable the petitioner pursue the said course.
5) Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate, representing the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that a
complaint was received in July, 2012 to the effect that the petitioner was not a scheduled tribe
and, therefore, not entitled to any benefit that the Central Government intended to pass on to
scheduled tribe candidates for undertaking the said course. It was submitted that an enquiry
was in progress and depending on the result thereof, the respondents would decide whether or
not the petitioner would be released the scholarship amount or not.
6) In the State of West Bengal, the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994 has been enacted to provide for the identification of the scheduled
castes and the scheduled tribes. Sections 4, 5 and 6 provide the procedure for obtaining a
certificate to the effect that the applicant belongs to a scheduled tribe. Section 9 of the Act
confers power on the certificate issuing authority to cancel, impound or revoke a certificate in
such manner as may be prescribed. The manner of cancellation, impounding or revocation of
certificate is prescribed in Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995 (hereafter the Rules). Rule 3(1) requires a
certificate issuing authority to hold a preliminary enquiry by himself or by any other officer
above the rank of Inspector of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Welfare Department, as may
be authorized by it in this behalf, should he receive any complaint that a person in whose
favour a certificate has been issued does not belong to such tribe. The power may also be
exercised suo motu. Only after a prima facie satisfaction is reached and upon recording the
reasons for such satisfaction that proceeding for cancellation, impounding or revocation of
the certificate, as the case may be, could be initiated.

7) Mr. Dutta was asked as to whether any preliminary enquiry, upon receipt of the aforesaid
complaint, had been made by the SDO or not as contemplated in Rule 3(1) of the Rules. The
answer was in the negative. Accordingly, order dated March 8, 2013 was made directing a
preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the SDO and for placement of the report of such
enquiry before the Court on March 25, 2013. By an order dated March 26, 2013, the date for
placement of the report of enquiry was extended to April 8, 2013.
8) The SDO, despite being under an obligation to place the report of preliminary enquiry
before the Court, overstepped his limit and proceeded to cancel the certificate issued in
favour of the petitioner an order dated April 3, 2013. In the order dated April 9, 2013, the
Court deprecated the haste with which the SDO proceeded to cancel the certificate issued in
favour of the petitioner. His action demonstrated bias to take adverse action against the
petitioner, thereby disabling him to proceed further. However, since a prima facie finding had
been reached that the process envisaged by Rule 3 ought to be set in motion, the Court
directed the District Magistrate, Nadia to consider afresh, without being influenced by any
finding arrived at by the SDO, as to whether the petitioner ought to be proceeded against or
not for cancellation of the certificate issued in his favour. The District Magistrate was further
directed to extend reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place his version and
the report of preliminary enquiry was directed to be placed before the Court on April 22,
2013. The District Magistrate has since submitted his report before the Court dated April 20,
2013.
9) It appears therefrom that a view has been formed by the District Magistrate that there are
sufficient materials on record to reach a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner ought to be
proceeded against in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules.
10) The report of the District Magistrate had been made available to Mr. Das. He tried to
impress the Court that the District Magistrate's report is full of infirmity and that it is not
worthy of being relied on.
11) Reference has been made by him to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 241 (Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and
ors.), (1994) 5 SCC 244 (Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs vs. Union of
India), (2011) 9 SCC 313 (Arshad Jamil v. State of Uttarakhand) and (2011) 12 SCC 656
(Varsha v. Divl. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee).
12) In his turn, Mr. Dutta relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1990) 3
SCC 130 (Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and ors.)
13) This Court considers it unnecessary to examine the applicability of the decisions that
have been cited. The District Magistrate has recorded his prima facie satisfaction that the
petitioner ought to be proceeded against for cancellation of the certificate issued in his favour.
The stage is now ripe for initiating steps under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, having regard to the
fact that sub-rule (2) thereof need not be complied with at this stage since in terms of
direction of this Court, the certificate is in the custody of Mr. Dutta. Mr. Dutta shall hand over
the certificate to the authorized representative of the District Magistrate and obtain
appropriate receipt. The words "certificate issuing authority" in the Rules, for the purpose of
the present case shall be read as the District Magistrate because the SDO has, by his conduct,
disabled himself to proceed further. To ensure that the proceedings are not unnecessarily
delayed, this Court considers it proper to direct the District Magistrate to issue the show

cause notice under Rule 3(3) of the Rules by May 20, 2013. The petitioner shall have time till
June 4, 2013 to respond to the said notice. After receipt of the petitioner's response or if no
response is received, the District Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law and shall
ensure that the final order is passed by July 4, 2013, failing which the proceeding shall stand
terminated. No prayer for extension of time to issue the notice or to reply thereto or to
conclude the proceeding shall be granted. The petitioner shall co-operate with the District
Magistrate. If necessary, the District Magistrate shall conduct day-to-day proceedings. This
direction is given because the petitioner has been advancing in age since his selection and he
ought not to be prejudiced by reason of such advancement in age, even if the District
Magistrate were ultimately to hold in his favour.
14) Since a grievance has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the so-called complaint
has not yet been served on him, the show cause notice to be issued in terms of Rule 3(3) of
the Rules must carry with it the said complaint and be served on the petitioner. It is further
made clear that the District Magistrate while proceeding against the petitioner shall duly
consider the evidence that he might produce as well as to the judgments operating in the field.
15) I also hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to be represented by an advocate before the
District Magistrate.
16) Needless to observe, the order of the District Magistrate if adverse to the petitioner may
be challenged by him in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
17) In the event the District Magistrate rules in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 1, 2
and 3 shall not leave any stone unturned to release the amount of scholarship in favour of the
petitioner within 7 days thereafter.
18) The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Photostat copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be made
available to the learned advocate for the State on the usual undertaking.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)