# Satish Dhuriya v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1380 of 2023
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-dhuriya-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-53174
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law -Petitioner was elected as Gram
Pradhan, a seat reserved for SC, based on
a caste certificate (dated 23.07.2015)
stating he belongs to the "Gond" (SC)
caste-A rival candidate who lost election,
obtained another caste certificate for the
petitioner
showing
his
caste
as
"Kahar"(OBC), and complained to the
District Magistrate to cancel the SC
certificate-The District Level Committee
canceled the petitioner's SC certificate
without referring the matter to vigilance,
declaring him OBC-Petitioner appealed to
the Divisional and then State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committees-The court found that
the Vigilance Report had confirmed the
petitioner's claim to SC status-As per the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Kumari
Madhurti Patil Vs. Addl. Commr., the State
Level
Committee
cannot
disregard
a
favorable Vigilance Report-The State Level
Committee overstepped its jurisdiction by
rejecting the petitioner's appeal despite a
favorable
Vigilance
Report-The
court
quashed the State Level Committee's
order rejecting the appeal and the District
Magistrate's
order
canceling
the
petitioner's election-Directed issuance of a
fresh caste certificate to the petitioner as
per
the
Vigilance
Report-Ordered
reinstatement of the petitioner as Gram
Pradhan based on his valid election-The
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court held that administrative bodies are
bound by the procedure laid down in
government
orders
and
judicial
precedents-the
committee
lacked
the
authority to overrule a favorable Vigilance
report,
and
the
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's election was unlawful.(Para 1
to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Satish Dhuriya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
565
Saroj Vs. Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas through its secretary A
Wing Shashtri Bhawan and others, Neutral
Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69732DB]. The argument made by learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondent no.3 that other co-owners
have witnessed the lease deed, and
accordingly, had become confirming
parties, is an argument in sophistry and
is required to be rejected by us outright.
There is a huge difference between
executing a particular document and
being a witness to the same document.
The witness does not in any manner
agree to the terms and conditions in the
said lease deed while a person who
executes the document agrees to the
terms and conditions. In light of the
same, co-owners witnessing a particular
document
would
not
amount
to
compliance of Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Brochure that categorically requires
execution by all the co-owners.

9. The judgment cited by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.3 is in a different factual
background, and accordingly, does not
apply
to
the
present
facts
and
circumstances
where
the
terms
and
conditions are specifically provided in the
Brochure made available during the time of
advertisement.

10. With the above observations,
the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 is
quashed and set aside and the writ petition
is allowed. The authority is directed to
cancel
the
allotment
made
to
the
respondent no.3 and carry out fresh draw of
lots in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ - C No. 1380 of 2023

Satish Dhuriya ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hemant Kumar Mishra, Arti Ganguly

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna Ram Yadav, Prahlad Singh

Civil Law -Petitioner was elected as Gram
Pradhan, a seat reserved for SC, based on
a caste certificate (dated 23.07.2015)
stating he belongs to the "Gond" (SC)
caste-A rival candidate who lost election,
obtained another caste certificate for the
petitioner
showing
his
caste
as
"Kahar"(OBC), and complained to the
District Magistrate to cancel the SC
certificate-The District Level Committee
canceled the petitioner's SC certificate
without referring the matter to vigilance,
declaring him OBC-Petitioner appealed to
the Divisional and then State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committees-The court found that
the Vigilance Report had confirmed the
petitioner's claim to SC status-As per the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Kumari
Madhurti Patil Vs. Addl. Commr., the State
Level
Committee
cannot
disregard
a
favorable Vigilance Report-The State Level
Committee overstepped its jurisdiction by
rejecting the petitioner's appeal despite a
favorable
Vigilance
Report-The
court
quashed the State Level Committee's
order rejecting the appeal and the District
Magistrate's
order
canceling
the
petitioner's election-Directed issuance of a
fresh caste certificate to the petitioner as
per
the
Vigilance
Report-Ordered
reinstatement of the petitioner as Gram
Pradhan based on his valid election-The
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court held that administrative bodies are
bound by the procedure laid down in
government
orders
and
judicial
precedents-the
committee
lacked
the
authority to overrule a favorable Vigilance
report,
and
the
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's election was unlawful.(Para 1
to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs Addl. Commr. Tribal
Development (1994) 6 SCC 241

2. Dhirendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-C
No. 7137 of 2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. An order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s).2764 of 2025 passed on
07.03.2025, a request has been made to
decide the matter expeditiously, preferably
within a period of three months. In
pursuance of the said request, the matter is
being taken up for decision.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Saharsh Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and
Shri Krishna Ram Yadav, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant/
opposite party no.4.

3. The present petition has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 25.01.2023 passed by the opposite
party no.1/ State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Lucknow dismissing the appeal
preferred by the petitioner as well as the
consequent order dated 10.02.2023 passed
by the opposite party no.3/ District
Magistrate, Sultanpur, whereby the election
certificate granted to the petitioner as a
Gram Pradhan was cancelled.

4. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner claims to be elected Pradhan of
village- Semari Kala, Block- Pratappur
Kamaicha, District- Sultanpur, which was
reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate
and the petitioner claiming himself to be a
Scheduled Caste candidate contested the
election held on 19.04.2021 and was
declared elected on 02.05.2021. The claim
of the petitioner was that he belongs to the
caste "Gond", sub-caste "Dhuria" which
according to him is recognized as a
Scheduled Caste, the said claim was also
made on the basis of a Caste Certificate
No.490541503125 dated 23.07.2015 issued
to the petitioner, wherein the caste of the
petitioner was mentioned as "Gond". It is
claimed that the opposite party no.4 also
contested the same election and lost,
however, the opposite party no.4 obtained a
new caste certificate of the petitioner on
15.05.2021,
which
was
bearing
No.495213010301, wherein the caste of the
petitioner was shown as "Kahar", which
falls under the OBC category. The
petitioner, approached the District Level
Authority for cancellation of the forged
caste certificate obtained by the opposite
party no.4 dated 15.05.2021 but as he did
not get any relief, he approached this Court
by filing Writ Petition No.12656 of 2021
(M/B), which was disposed of by this Court
by holding that the remedy of the petitioner
would be either before the Tehsildar or
before the District Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee. Thereafter, the opposite party
no.4 made a complaint against the
petitioner for cancellation of the Scheduled
Caste certificate of the petitioner dated
23.07.2015 before the District Magistrate,
who issued notices to the petitioner and the
District Level Committee constituted under
the Government Order, without referring
the matter to vigilance cancelled the
4 All. Satish Dhuriya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
567
certificate of the petitioner, which was
dated 23.07.2015 by means of an order
dated 08.09.2021 and the petitioner was
declared as OBC, based upon the certificate
obtained by the opposite party no.4 on
15.05.2021.

5. Aggrieved against the said order of
the District Level Committee, an appeal
was preferred by the petitioner before the
Divisional Level Committee and the same
was also dismissed vide order dated
17.11.2021. Both the said orders i.e. passed
by the District Level Committee as well as
the Divisional Level Committee were
challenged from moving an appeal before
the State Level Committee. The State Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, referred the
case of the petitioner for investigation to
the Vigilance Cell established in pursuance
of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996.

6. The report of the Vigilance Cell was
submitted in which, it was found that the
caste certificate of the petitioner obtained
on 23.07.2015 is correct. The said report is
on record as Annexure No.7.

7.
The
State
Level
Committee,
thereafter taking into consideration the
report of the Vigilance Cell inquiry,
proceeded to analyze the same and
ultimately proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
In consequent to the said order, the election
of the petitioner stood annulled by means
of an order passed which is also impugned
as Annexure No.2.

8. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of
the directions given by the Supreme Court
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development reported in 1994 (6) SCC
241, wherein directions were given. My
attention is also drawn to para 5 to para 9
of the said judgment, which are quoted
here-in-below:-

"5. Each Directorate should
constitute a vigilance cell consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in
overall 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, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial and 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 acknowledgment due
or through the head of the concerned
educational
institution
in
which
the
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate is studying or employed. The
notice
should
indicate
that
the
representation or reply, if any, would be
made within two weeks from the date of the
receipt of the notice and in no case on
request not more than 30 days from the
date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the
candidate seeks for an opportunity of
hearing and claims an inquiry to be made
in that behalf, the Director on receipt of
such representation / reply shall convene
the Committee and the Joint / Addl.
Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate /
parent / guardian to adduce all evidence in
support of their claim. A public notice by
beat of drum or any other convenient mode
may be published in the village or locality
and if any person or association opposes
such a claim, an opportunity to adduce
evidence may be given to him / it. After
giving such opportunity either in person or
through counsel, the Committee may make
such inquiry as it deems expedient and
consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections
raised by the candidate or opponent and
pass an appropriate order with brief
reasons in support thereof.

7. In case the report is in favour
of the candidate and found to be genuine
and true, no further action need be taken
except where the report or the particulars
given are procured or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained and in the latter
event the same procedure as is envisaged in
para 6 be followed.

8. Notice contemplated in para 6
should be issued to the parents / guardian
also in case candidate is minor to appear
before the Committee with all evidence in
his or their support of the claim for the
social status certificates.

9.
The
inquiry
should
be
completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably by day-today 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."

9. The State Government in pursuance
with the said direction has issued a
Government
Order
dated
05.01.1996,
which is contained in Annexure No.9 to the
petition.

10. My attention is drawn to the
Government Order, which is on record and
specific attention is drawn to clause 5 and
6, which are noticed as under:-

"(5) जानत प्रमाण पत्र के
सत्र्ापन
हेतु
थकूटनी
कमेटी
को
आवेदन पत्र प्रथतुत ककर्े जाने पर वे
र्िाशीघ्र उसे सांबांधित ननदेशालर् को
प्रेवषत करेंगे, जो उसे अपने अिीन
कार्ारत सतकाता-कोष्ठक को सौंपेंगे।
सतकाता-कोष्ठक के सांबांधित पुभलस
ननरीक्षक अभ्र्िी के ननवास थिान,
उसके मूल ननवास व सामान्र्तः ननवास
ककर्े जाने के थिानों आदद पर जाकर
जानत प्रमाण पत्र की जाांच करेंगे तिा
उसकी
जाांच
के
पश्चात
सतकाता
अधिकारी व्र्जततगत रूप से तथ्र्ों का
सत्र्ापन करेंगे तिा सांबांधित तथ्र्ों को
एकत्र करेंगे। वे शैक्षक्षक सांथिओां के
4 All. Satish Dhuriya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
569
अभिलेखों, जन्म पांजीर्न आदद का
परीक्षक क सकेंगे तिा अभ्र्िी, उसके
माता-वपता
र्ा
अभििावक
अिवा
अभ्र्िी
के
सामाजजक
थतर
की
जानकारी रखने वाले ककसी अन्र्
व्र्जतत का परीक्षण कर सकेंगे तिा
परीक्षणोपरान्त ववथतृत वववरणों सदहत
ननिााररत प्रपत्र पर अपनी आख्र्ा
सांबांधित ननदेशालर् को प्रथतुत करेंगे।

(6) र्दद सांबांधित सताकता-
कोष्ठक की जाांच-पड़ताल के अनुसार
जानत प्रमाण पत्र सत्र्ावपत हो जाता है
तो सांबांधित ननदेशक द्वारा 'जानत
प्रमाण पत्र का सत्र्ापन कर ददर्ा
जार्ेगा, परन्तु जानत प्रमाण पत्र के
सत्र्ावपत
न
होने
की
दशा
में
ननम्नभलखखत कार्ावाही की जार्ेगीः-

(1) सांबांधित ननदेशक द्वारा
सतकाता अधिकारी की आख्र्ा की प्रनत
िेजते हुए अभ्र्िी को एक कारण
बताओ नोदटस पावती पांजीकृत र्ाक
द्वारा अिवा सांबांधित सांथिा, जहाां वह
अध्र्र्नरत् हो र्ा सेवारत हो, के
अध्र्क्ष (हेर्) के माध्र्म से दी जार्ेगी,
जजसमें नोदटस की प्राजप्त से दो सप्ताह
के िीतर अभ्र्िी से अभ्र्ावेदन र्ा
उत्तर, र्दद वह देना चाहे, ददर्े जाने की
अपेक्षा की जार्ेगी।

(2) ऐसा अभ्र्ावेदन र्ा उत्तर
देने के भलए अभ्र्िी के अनुसार पर
अधिक से अधिक नोदटस की प्राजप्त के
30 ददन का समर् ददर्ा जा सकता है,
इससे अधिक नहीां।

(3) समर्ान्तगात प्रथतुत अपने
अभ्र्ावेदन र्ा उत्तर में र्दद अभ्र्िी
सुनवाई का अवसर प्रदान करने र्ा इस
ववषर् में अन्वेषण (इनतवार्री) कराने
का
अनुरोि
करता
है
तो
अभ्र्ावेदन/उत्तर प्राप्त होने पर सांबांधित
ननदेशक
थकूटनी-कमेटी
और
उसके
अध्र्क्ष को अवगत करार्ेंगे, जा अभ्र्िी
र्ा र्िाजथिनत उसके माता-वपता र्ा
अभििवक को उतत जानत प्रमाण पत्र
की सत्र्ता के पक्ष में समथत साक्ष्र्
प्रथतुत करने का र्ुजतत-र्ुतत अवसर
प्रदान करेंगे और सांबांधित गाांव र्ा
आबादी में उद्घोषणा द्वारा र्ा अन्र्
सुलि रीनत से एक सावाजननक सूचना
प्रसाररत करेंगे और ऐसी सावाजननक
सूचना पर र्दद का जानत प्रमाण पत्र
की सत्र्ता का कोई व्र्जतत र्ा सांगठन,
थवांर् र्ा अपने अधिवतता के माध्र्म
से, ववरोि करता है तो उसे अपने ववरोि
के पक्ष में साक्ष्र् प्रथतुत करने का
अवसर प्रदान ककर्ा जार्ेगा। इस
अवसर पर अभ्र्िी िी अपने पक्ष को
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अधिवतता के माध्र्म से प्रथतुत कर
सकेगा।

(4)
थकूटनी-कमेटी,
अभ्र्िी
द्वारा प्रथतुत तथ्र्ों व ववपक्षक्षर्ों द्वारा
उठाई गई आपवत्तर्ाां आदद के प्रकाश में,
ववचारोपरान्त समुधचत आदेश पाररत
करेगी, जजसमें कमेटी के ननष्कषो के
समिान में सांक्षक्षप्त कारणों का िी
उल्लेख ककर्ा जार्ेगा।

(5)
उपरोतत
कार्ावाही
शीघ्रनतशीघ्र ददन प्रनतददन के आिार
पर
इस
प्रकार
की
जार्ेगी
कक
अनाधिक 2 मास की अवधि में पूरी हो
जार्।

(6) कमेटी के ननणार्ों से
अभ्र्िी र्ा र्िाजथिनत उसके माता-
वपता र्ा अभििावक को ननणार् लेने के
एक माह के िीतर अवगत करार्ा
जार्ेगा।

(7) र्दद थकूटनी-कमेटी के
ननणार्ानुसार जानत प्रमाण पत्र असत्र्
पार्ा जाता है तो :-

(क) कमेटी द्वारा जानत प्रमाण
पत्र को ननरथत करने के आदेश पाररत
ककर्े जार्ेंगे व उतत जानत प्रमाण पत्र
को जब्त कर भलर्ा जार्ेगा।

(ख)
र्िाजथिनत,
सांबांधित
शैक्षक्षक आदद सांथिा र्ा ननर्ुजतत
प्राधिकारी से, पांजीकृत र्ाक से अनुरोि
ककर्ा जार्ेगा कक र्िाजथिनत सांबांधित
अभ्र्िी के प्रवेश / ननर्ुजतत को बबना
कोई नोदटस ददर्े तत्काल ननरथत कर
दें और तदनुसार आगे अध्र्र्नरत र्ा
र्िाजथिनत उसे पद/सेवा पर बने रहने
से वांधचत कर ददर्ा जार्ेगा।

(ग)
सांबांधित
अभ्र्िी
र्ा
र्िाजथिनत
उसके
माता-वपता
र्ा
अभििावक के ववरूद्ि झूठा दावा करने
के भलए अभिर्ोजन की कार्ावाही की
जार्ेगी।"

11. In the light of the said, the
submission
of
learned
counsel
for
petitioner is that once, the vigilance
report was in favour of the petitioner, it
was not open to the State Level
Committee, to sit over the said report or
to exercise a power of judicial review as
has been done by means of impugned
order. It is further argued that the clause 6
of the Government Order is very specific
and clear and elaborates that in the event,
the vigilance report is not found in favour
of the person, the procedure as prescribed
under clause 6 shall be followed. He thus
argues that the State Level Committee, had
no jurisdiction to sit over the report of the
vigilance and to take stand, contrary to the
vigilance report as has been done by means
of the impugned order.

12. He draws my attention to the
Annexure No.1, wherein the report of the
vigilance was placed and considered by the
State Level Committee, the State Level
Committee thereafter analyzed the said
4 All. Satish Dhuriya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
571
report and recorded its disagreement on the
basis of the analysis of the material, based
upon which, the vigilance report was
submitted and thus proceeded to dismiss
the appeal.

13. In the light of the arguments as
raised above, it is argued that once, the
vigilance report was in favour of the
petitioner,
the
passing
of
an
order
dismissing an appeal was beyond the power
and scope of the State Level Committee as
such, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed. While attacking to the Annexure
No.2 it is a consequential order whereby
the election of the petitioner was quashed, a
reliance is placed upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar
versus State of U.P. & others, Writ-C
No.7137 of 2020 decided on 08.09.2020, to
argue that the procedure for upsetting the
election, is prescribed under the Panchayat
Raj Act and rules and without following the
said procedure, the elected candidate
cannot be revoked. It is also argued that
this question whether the cancellation of
the election on the ground of cancellation
of the caste certificate can be done under
the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and
rules or only through an election petition,
has been referred to a Full Bench, however,
no orders have been passed by the Full
Bench determining the said issue.

14. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.4, on the other hand, argues that in
terms of the documents which included the
document of the father of the petitioner
who was working as a Government
employee and in his service, the caste
"Kahar" was recorded and there is no
material to form a view as to how, the
petitioner became a Scheduled Caste
whereas his father's caste was "Kahar". He
also draws my attention to the documents
which are on record to demonstrate that in
the family register, in front of the
petitioner's name, the name is shown as
"Kahar of the Godia".

15. In the light of the said, it is
proposed to be argued that, the petitioner
has used the word "Gond" only as a title
and the said use of the word would not
amount to change of the caste. He argues
that these aspects were not considered by
the Vigilance Committee and have been
adequately considered by the State Level
Committee while dismissing the appeal
which warrants no interference under
Article 226.

16. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel argues that the order has been
passed after analyzing the facts and the
discrepancies as were noticed by the State
Level Committee and in the light of the
impugned order to form a view that the
appeal merits a rejection. He argues that the
vigilance report, had not considered the
service book of the father of the petitioner
in its true perspective and thus, no error can
be found with the order of the State Level
Committee, warranting interference. He
further argues that as the Caste Level
Certificate of the petitioner was found to be
forged, the election contested by him on the
foundation of the said caste certificate,
deserved to be quashed and has been
rightly quashed by means of the order
which is contained as Annexure No.2.

17. My attention was drawn to a
judgment of the Bombay High Court
wherein, it was observed that the report of
the vigilance, is to be considered as an
evidence in the decision making process by
the State Level Committee and thus, the
same can only be seen as an evidence and
the same is not binding on the State Level
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee. Learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, very fairly states that in
terms of the rules framed in Maharashtra in
pursuance with the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), there is a
stipulation that the Vigilance Committee
report shall be a material relevant for being
considered by the State Level Committee,
he however states that in terms of the
Government Order issued in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the same is binding on a
plain
reading
of
clause
6
of
the
Government Order. The Court appreciates
his fairness.

18. Considering the submissions
made at the bar and recorded above, what
transpires is that in terms of the general
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra), the State Government has
issued
a
Government
Order
which
prescribes the manner of taking decisions
in the event of a challenge to the caste
certificate and clause 6 of the said
Government Order, on a plain reading
circumsizes the power of the State Level
Committee in the event vigilance report is
in favour of any candidate, the power of
judicial review can be exercised by the
State Level Committee only when, the
report is contrary to the person whose
caste
certificate
is
sought
to
be
scrutinized. In the absence of their being
any adverse report, the State Level
Committee in terms of the Government
Order did not have any power of judicial
review
sitting
over
the
report
of
Vigilance Committee as has been done by
means of impugned order. It is also
relevant to note that the State Level
Committee, is created by the Government
Order itself and thus, the same cannot
exercise the powers which are not vested
in a body in the said Government Order
itself.

19. In the present case, order of the
State Level Committee dismissing the
appeal after analyzing and differing with
the report of this Vigilance Committee, is
beyond the scope of decision making
power conferred upon the State Level
Committee and finding the same to be
beyond the decision making power of the
State Level Committee, the same cannot
be accepted and is accordingly quashed.
The State Level Committee was bound to
accept the report of the Vigilance
Committee in terms of the mandate of
clause 6 as such, the order passed by the
State Level Committee is quashed.
Directions are issued to the State Level
Committee to issue directions to the
authority concerned to issue a caste
certificate to the petitioner in terms of the
recommendation
of
the
Vigilance
Committee within a period of four weeks
from today. In view of the fact that the
order of the State Level Committee has
been set aside, the consequential order
passed by the District Magistrate under
the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which
is solely founded on the quashing of the
caste certificate also deserves to be
quashed and is accordingly quashed.

20. It is further directed that on the
strength of the caste level certificate as
directed to be issued to the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from today,
the petitioner shall be restored to his
position as a Pradhan in terms of his
election.

21. The State Level Committee shall
pass an order and shall ensure that the
competent
authority
issue
a
fresh
certificate of caste of the petitioner in terms
4 All. Career Convent Edu. And Charitable Trust Thru. Manager & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 573
of the earlier caste certificate issued to him
on 23.07.2015.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 573
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 1953 of 2021

Career Convent Edu. And charitable Trust
Thru. Manager & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lalta Prasad Mishra, Amit Jaiswal-Ojus
Law, Gaurav Mehrotra, Sharad Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Sections 67, 210(1), 216,
219 & 230(2) - U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 - Rule 67 - U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 15,
221 & 224 - U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950-
Section
122-B
-
U.P.
General
Clauses
Act,
1904
-
Section 24 - Issue : Whether
notification
dated
29.12.2020
empowering
the
Tehsildar
to
exercise the powers vested in the
Assistant
Collector,
with
retrospective effect from the date
of
promulgation
of
the
U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006,
i.e.,
11.02.2016 is sustainable ? Held :
Law is settled that unless and
until there is a provision in the
statute
itself
permitting
retrospective effect to Rules and
Notifications
made
thereunder,
the
same
cannot
be
done
-
Notification
dated
29-12-2020
held ultra vires and unsustainable,
as: (i) Code, 2006 contains no
provision permitting issuance of
such
notification
with
retrospective effect (ii) Section
219 merely allows delegation of
State Government's own powers,
whereas powers under S. 67 are
not
State
Government's,
(iii)
notification
dated
29.12.2020
cannot be sustained as it does not
deal with procedural aspect but
one which vests jurisdiction on
the Tehsildar - Notifications dated
06-06-1953, 25-07-1960 and 0701-1964 issued under repealed
Acts
of
1901
and
1950
empowering
Tehsildars
as
Assistant Collectors and to act
under S. 122-B (corresponding to
S. 67 of Code, 2006) are not
inconsistent with the provisions of
the Code and hence saved under
S. 230(2) of Code, 2006 and also
deemed continued by S. 24 of the
General Clauses Act, 1904 - No
necessity
to
issue
fresh
notification in 2020 - Notification
dated
29-12-2020
quashed
as
legally unsustainable and otiose -
Liberty given to State Government
to issue clarificatory notification if
it
so
chooses
-
Until
then,
Tehsildars to continue to exercise
powers
under
earlier
saved
notifications. (Para 12, 13, 20, 33,
36, 40, 41)
B. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code,
2006- Sections 67 & 216 - U.P.
Revenue Code Rules, 2016, R. 67
-
Encroachment
upon
Gram
Panchayat
Property
-
Final
eviction order passed without
service of notice upon it, in terms
of the provisions of S. 216 and
without hearing it - Appellate
authority also without considering
the pleas raised rejected the