Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P-1 to P-10 and to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no legal right to proceed under law for determining the caste status of the petitioners based upon Ext.P10 notice and to set aside the proceedings initiated based upon Ext.P2 report as illegal, unjust and opposed to law;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents have no legal right to proceed under law to determine the caste status of the petitioners based upon Ext.P-2 report as belonging to Kodangi Community due to the long delay caused in conducting the proceedings and also based upon the previous decision taken accepting the contentions of the petitioners whereby no further steps were taken to issue summons to the witnesses, etc.;
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus declaring that Kodangi is not a caste or a Caste name, but only an occupational name used by members of Nayadi Community and to declare that the petitioners are members of Nayadi community;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents if allowed by this Honourable Court to proceed only in compliance with the directions issued by this Honourable Court and the Honourable Supreme Court giving opportunity of adducing oral evidence apart from documentary evidence in the matter of determining the issue covered by Ext.P-2 report;”
2. Ext.P10 is the notice issued by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the community certificate. The contention urged by the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 and the authorities had kept absolute silence despite the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. It is, after four years from Ext.P8 judgment that Ext.P10 notice had been issued.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that as far as caste certificate of the petitioner is concerned, the same is required to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed and when notice is issued calling upon the petitioner to appear and adduce evidence the petitioner is under obligation to do so and failure of which will result in delay in obtaining caste certificate in accordance with law.
4. Having regard to these factual circumstances,I do not think that there is any illegality on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in issuing Ext.P10 notice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that it is not the Scrutiny committee that makes enquiry into the matter and only the Chairman is involved in the hearing. Such issues are to be decided only after the Scrutiny Committee forms an opinion and appropriate orders are passed.
In the said circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P10 notice and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr