Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:— This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order, as contained in Annexure-18, by which the application for issuance of Caste certificate showing the petitioner as the caste of ‘Ghatwar’, has been rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner showing him of the ‘Ghatwar’ caste, but, since he belongs to the area pertaining to the Santhal Pargana province, wherein, the competent authority, while issuing the said Caste certificate has considered the survey settlement of the district of Mango, whereby and whereunder ‘Ghatwar’ caste is treated to be the sub-caste of the ‘Bhumij’, but the said caste certificate has been rejected vide impugned order (Anneure-18) without assigning any reason and therefore, the instant writ petition.
3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the grounds, firstly that before cancelling the caste certificate, no show cause notice has ever been issued to the petitioner as also without any reason, therefore, the rejection order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and secondly before taking decision to reject, if the competent authority ought to have referred the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent, whereby and whereunder, the stand has been taken that the State of Jharkhand has come out with a notification, as contained under Annexure-D, by which the ‘Ghatwar’ caste has been treated to be under the B.C. category (Annexure-2) and therefore, the competent authority by taking the aid of the said notification, has cancelled the caste certificate and, as such, there is no infirmity in the same.
5. It has further been stated therein that the show cause notice was issued to that effect but the caste certificate, since was issued due to the bona fide mistake without considering the aforesaid Notification as contained under Annexure-D, therefore, the same cannot be said to be illegal, since the authorities have taken decision to cancel the caste certificate which was issued is in the teeth of the Notification, as contained under Annexure-D.
6. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Notification as contained under Annexure-D cannot override the Presidential Order, as has been made within the meaning of Schedule ‘VI’ to the Constitution of India, wherein, the ‘Ghatwar’ caste has been treated to be under the Scheduled Tribe in the area pertaining to South Chhotanagpur, North Chhotanagpur and the Santhal Pargana Area and therefore, once it has been ordered by the President of India and declared the said caste under the Scheduled Tribe category, having been referred in Schedule VI of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be superseded by a Notification, issued by the authorities of the State of Jharkhand and therefore, even the ground which has been taken by the petitioner by putting reliance upon the said Notification, is contrary to the legal position.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, the factual aspects, which is not in dispute in this case, are that the Caste certificate, which was issued to the petitioner on 29 May, 2018 showing the petitioner as being the member of the ‘Ghatwar’ caste, which is sub-caste of ‘Bhumij’ under the Scheduled Tribe. All of a sudden, the decision has been taken under Annexure-18 (impugned), whereby and whereunder the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been treated to be no longer valid.
8. The petitioner has questioned that decision, mainly on the ground that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the decision is without any reason and based upon the Notification of the State of Jharkhand which cannot override the Presidential Order by virtue of it the ‘Bhumij’ caste has been brought under the purview of the VIth Schedule and since ‘Ghatwar’ is sub-caste of ‘Bhumij’, hence the petitioner being ‘Ghatwar’ will be of Scheduled Tribe category. The said submission has been objected by the State Respondent.
9. After examining the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds strength upon the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because even if the Government has come out with a Notification, which restrict the competent authority to issue the Caste certificate, since once the caste certificate has been issued, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to assign the reason therein, but, it is evident from the face of the order that no reason has been assigned, save and except, it has been reflected therein, that due to certain reasons, some of the decisions have been reverted and the previously issued documents, if any, are no longer valid.”
10. It is settled position of law that a decision without any reason will be said to be not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the order in absence of any reason, also amounts to the violation of the principles of natural justice as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981 at para 6, which reads as under:—
“6. … … … … It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd.…. … … … …”
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.N Mukherjee v. Union Of India. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 at para 39 has been pleased to inter alia, hold as under :—
“39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action”. As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. … … …”
12. It is on the principle that if there is no reason reflected on the face of the order, it cannot be said by going through its face that what led the authority to cancel or withdraw the benefit given in favour of the parties and when any adverse decision is taken, it is incumbent upon the concerned authority to assign the reason, so that the person, who is going to suffer, at least be able to know the reason.
13. Learned counsel for the State Respondent has submitted that reason has been explained in the counter affidavit, as such, the same will be said to be sufficient reason, but, this argument is having no force due to the settled position of law that a reason, which is not on the face of the order, cannot be supplemented by an affidavit, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 8 in the judgment rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, which reads as under:—
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.”
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 at para 9 has been pleased to inter alia hold as under:—
“9. There is no quarrel with the well-settled proposition of law that an order passed by a public authority exercising administrative/executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or any record or file contemporaneously maintained. It follows that the infirmity arising out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authority passing the order stating such reasons in an affidavit filed before the court where the validity of any such order is under challenge. The legal position in this regard is settled by the decision of this Court in Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji1 wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 18, para 9)
“9. … public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Air Travel Services v. Union of India reported in (2018) 8 SCC 141 at para 11 has held as under:—
“11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, rightly drawn our attention to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.3 to submit that such a plea cannot be accepted. We may note that this is a well-settled legal position in many judicial pronouncements of this Court, but it is not necessary to revert to the same. In para 8 of the aforesaid judgment, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in his inimitable style states as under:
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji4: (AIR p. 18, para 9)
‘9. …public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.’
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.”
16. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law that when an authority is passing an order by taking a decision, it is his duty to reflect the reason therein, so that the party against whom, the decision has been taken, at least be able to know the reason otherwise, if the contention of the respondents would be accepted that the reason has been shown in the counter affidavit, in that circumstances, the reason can be known to the party, if the parties will approach to the Court, which cannot be said to be permissible. Further, the reason is assigned to be mentioned in the order, in absence of reason, it will be said to be a mechanical decision and hence will not be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law.
17. The second ground, which has been urged by the petitioner regarding the supersession of the Presidential Order, whereby and whereunder, ‘Bhumij’ caste has been treated to be Scheduled Tribe by making a declaration in this regard in the VI Schedule of the Constitution of India and ‘Ghatwar’ is a sub caste of ‘Bhumij’, while the contrary decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand.
18. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the order impugned (Annexure-18) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly quashed.
19. It is equally settled that on technicality, no relief can be allowed to be taken by the party and therefore, since the matter is to be decided, depending upon the factual aspects and since in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted with the State of Jharkhand as informed, therefore, it would be appropriate, just and proper to accord liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for redressal of his grievance, so that decision be taken in this regard by appreciating all aspects of the matter strictly in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) as also the j/udgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi, passed in Civil Appeal No. 4069 of 2008, within the time period stipulated in the aforesaid judgment.
20. Accordingly, the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Committee, as directed, would follow the consequence.
21. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of.
22. It needs to refer herein that the consequence of this order will only confine to the petitioner.