IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 21813 of 2025

Ranajit Rakshit

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

W.P.A. No. 20033 of 2025

Khukurani Mondal Ghorai

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee

Ms. Megha Datta

… For the petitioner in WPA 21813 of 2025

and for the respondent no.8 in WPA 20033 of

2025.

.

Mr. Kartik Chandra Kapas

Mr. Dinesh Pani

Ms. Sulagna Sen

2

… For the petitioner in WPA 20033 of 2025

and for the respondent no. 7 in WPA 21813 of

2025.

Mr. Vivekananda Bose

Ms. Susmita Chatterjee

… For the State in WPA 21813 of 2025

Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. AGP

Ms. Subhra Nag

… For the State in WPA 20033 of 2025

Hearing Concluded On : 10.02.2026

Judgment On : 25.02.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner in WPA No. 21813 of 2025, has prayed for cancelation of

the Other Backward Classes Certificate of the private respondent in

terms of Section 9 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 read with Rule 5 of the West Bengal

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995.

2. The petitioner in WPA No. 20033 of 2025, has prayed for setting aside

the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tamluk in

Case No. 10/2025 dated 23

rd July, 2025, wherein it is held that the

petitioner does not belong to the Other Backward community.

3. The writ petitioner in WPA No. 21813 of 2025 contested Panchayat

Elections, 2023 in the State of West Bengal in Booth No. 148 in

3

Iswarpur No.5 Gram Panchayat, under Chandipur Block under the

banner of Bharatiya Janata Party as an Other Backward Classes

Candidate (Kansari). The private respondent who is the writ petitioner

in WPA No. 20033 of 2025 contested the same election under the

banner of Trinamool Congress for the post of Pradhan, which was

reserved for the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes

category. The private respondent was elected as Pradhan and at

present the private respondent holding the post of Pradhan, Iswarpur

Gram Panchayat.

4. Subsequent to the elections, the petitioner came to know that the OBC

Certificate relied upon by the private respondent on the basis of which

the private respondent has contested the elections for the Post of

Pradhan as OBC category, has obtained the said certificate

fraudulently. The petitioner has made several requests to the

authorities for cancellation of the OBC Certificate of the private

respondent but no action was taken.

5. The petitioner, finding no other alternative, has filed a writ application

being WPA No. 22555 of 2023 praying for cancellation of the OBC

Certificate of the private respondent. The said writ petition was

disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated

15

th January, 2025, directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct a

re-enquiry and to ascertain the proper category of the private

respondent and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

4

6. In terms of the order passed by this Court, the Sub-Divisional Officer

has conducted enquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

private respondent, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 23

rd

July, 2025, holding that the private respondent does not belong to the

OBC community, sub-caste Tanti (Tantubaya).

7. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate representing the

writ petitioner in WPA No. 21813 of 2025 submits that the Coordinate

Bench of this Court by an order dated 15

th January, 2025, categorically

directed that if the allegation of the petitioner is proper, then necessary

remedial measures shall be taken but though the Sub-Divisional Officer

held that the private respondent does not belong to the OBC

community but failed to take further steps for cancellation of the OBC

Certificate of the private respondent.

8. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the petitioner has also made a

representation to the respondent no.3 for taking appropriate steps for

immediate cancelation, impounding and revocation of the OBC

Certificate of the private respondent but no further steps have been

taken by the respondent no.3.

9. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that though the respondent no.3 has held

that the private respondent does not belong to the OBC community but

the private respondent is continuously holding the post of Pradhan on

the basis of the OBC Certificate. He submits that the post of Pradhan of

Iswarpur Gram Panchayat is reserved exclusively for the OBC category

5

and it is established that the private respondent does not belongs to

OBC category but still the private respondent is allowed to continue to

be the Pradhan of the said panchayat.

10. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that by the order of the Sub-Divisional

Officer, it is conclusively established that the private respondent has

obtained OBC Certificate by fraudulent means and, by reason thereof,

unlawfully contested the election for the post of Pradhan which was

reserved for OBC category and the private respondent is still holding

the post of Pradhan, which is a clear violation of the Constitutional

Scheme of Reservation and statutory mandate, causing substantial

prejudice to the petitioner and the community.

11. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the

judgment in the case of Biswajit Das Vs. State of West Bengal

reported in 2017 (5) CHN (CAL) 497 and submits that when a person

who is not a member of a Scheduled Castes/ Tribes obtains a false

certificate with a view to gain undue advantage to which he is not

otherwise entitled, that would amount to commission of fraud calling

for immediate corrective action so as to prevent subversion of the

constitutional purpose and no leniency can be shown.

12. Mr. Kartik Chandra Kapas, Learned Advocate representing the writ

petitioner in WPA No. 20033 of 2025 (private respondent in WPA No.

21813 of 2025) submits that the private respondent obtained OBC

Certificate on 1

st June, 2013, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

6

Tamluk on the basis of the recommendation of the Block Development

Officer and the ex-Pradhan. He submits that in the year 2013 and

2018, the private respondent contested election from Iswarpur Gram

Panchayat as an OBC candidate by the symbol of All India Trinamool

Congress.

13. Mr. Kapas submits that in the year 2023 also the private respondent

contested the election to the post of Pradhan as an OBC candidate and

the petitioner has also contested the said election and he has lost

election from the private respondent, only to take revenge has initiated

a false case against the private respondent.

14. Mr. Kapas submits that the petitioner could not produce relevant

documents to the Sub-Divisional Officer at the time of hearing as due

to the cyclone, namely, Aila, the petitioner has lost her many valuable

documents and secondly when she was travelling to Chandipur BDO

Office, she has lost her bag containing original deeds, pass book and

other valuable documents and the said matter was also reported to the

concern police authority and G.D. Entry was also lodged by the police

authority on 25

th June, 2025.

15. Mr. Kapas, during hearing of the case, has handed over the

Memorandum issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 30

th

April, 2010 wherein the guidelines for issuance of OBC Certificates are

provided and submits that the authority has issued OBC Certificate on

the basis of the said guidelines but at the time of cancellation of the

7

OBC Certificate, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not considered the

guidelines dated 30

th April, 2010. In support of his submissions, he has

relied upon the judgement in the case of Darvell Investment and

Leasing (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of West Bengal & Others

reported in 2015 (2) CHN (CAL) 674.

16. Mr. Kapas submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to

cancel OBC Certificate and in support of his submissions, he has relied

upon an unreported judgment in the case of Krishnapada Sardar

and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others in WPA No.

24655 (W) of 2018 dated 10

th January, 2020 wherein the Coordinate

Bench of this Court held that it was de hors the jurisdiction of the Sub-

Divisional Officer to cancel the certificate of the petitioner, within the

purview of Section 9(1) of the 1994 Act.

17. Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Learned Advocate appearing for the State in

WPA No. 21813 of 2025 submits that after the order passed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer for cancellation of OBC Certificate of the private

respondent, the private respondent has filed writ petition challenging

the said order, thus the Sub-Divisional Officer has not taken any

further steps.

18. Mr. Bose further submits that now, he has an information that the

Sub-Divisional Officer has issued notice to the private respondent

directing to submit the OBC Certificate in the Office of the Sub-

Divisional Officer.

8

19. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Learned AGP appearing for the State in WPA No.

20033 of 2025 and submits that as per the order passed by this Court

in the earlier round of litigation, the Sub-Divisional Officer has

enquired into the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner as well as the private respondent but the private respondent

failed to submit required documents to establish that the private

respondent belongs to the OBC community.

20. Mr. Banerjee submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has cancelled the

OBC Certificate of the private respondent and the private respondent

has challenged the said order of cancellation in a writ proceeding but

as per Section 7(G) of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Schedule

Tribes (Identification) Rules, 1995, the impugned order is an appealable

order, thus the Writ Petition No. 20033 of 2025 is not maintainable.

21. By an order dated 15

th January, 2025, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court passed the following order:

“1. None represent the private respondent.

2. The petitioner challenges the Other

Backward Classes certificate issued in favour of

the private respondent. Specific submission of the

petitioner is that the petitioner does not belong to

the said category. A complaint was lodged by the

petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer which is

yet to be disposed of.

3. Learned advocate representing the State

relies upon a report forwarded by the SDO,

Tamluk, Purba Medinipur signed on 2nd May, 2024

which mentions that the complaint of the petitioner

was enquired. It was found that the original OBC-B

certificate was issued in favour of the private

respondent and the same was digitized.

9

4. Relying upon such issuance, the authority

opined the candidate belongs to the said category.

5. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was

not conducted in the manner prescribed in the West

Bengal SC and ST (Identification) Rules, 1995.

6. It appears from the report that has been

placed in Court today that the authority only

considered the genuineness of the certificate that

was issued in favour of the private respondent. The

contents of the said certificate and more

particularly as to whether the candidate in whose

favour the OBC certificate was issued actually

belongs to the said category or not has not been

enquired into.

7. The SDO is directed to conduct re-enquiry to

ascertain the proper category of the private

respondent upon giving an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner and the private respondent.

8. On conclusion of the enquiry fresh reasoned

order shall be passed and communicated to the

parties. If it appears that the allegation of the

petitioner is proper, then necessary remedial

measures shall be taken.

9. Steps shall be taken in the matter at the

earliest but positively within a period of twelve

weeks from the date of communication of this

order.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of.”

22. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 15

th January,

2025, the Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry through Block

Development Officer, Joint Block Development Officer and Inspector

(BCW). The said officials after conducting enquiry, have submitted joint

enquiry report which reads as follows:

10

“Enquiry Report

An enquiry was conducted regarding the OBC

certificate of Khuku Rani Mondal Ghorai. D/o-

Kushadhwaj Mondal of Vill- Batnan, P.O-

Gopinathpur, P.S- Chandipur, Dist.- Purba

Medinipur & presently residing at vill- Pichalda,

P.O.- Asutiabarh, P.S.- Chandipur, Dist- Purba

Medinipur on the basis of the direction of the SDO,

Tamluk.

The concerned Khuku Rani Mondal Ghorai

was primarily asked to submit her own OBC

certificate bearing No.- WB1904OBC2013000358

dated -01/06/2013 and on verification it was

found to be genuinely issued from the end of the

SDO, Tamluk in the year 2013.

On being asked to provide any supporting

documents on the basis of which the said OBC

certificate was issued, Smt. Khuku Rani Mondal

Ghorai could not provide any such documents.

She only Provided the document of her Family

Tree & Legal heir documents of her father Lt.

Kushadhwaj Mandal issued by Pradhan,

Chowkhali Gram Panchayat.

As such, a field enquiry was conducted jointly

by the BDO, Jt. BDO & Inspector BCW in Charge of

Chandipur Dev. Block and it is found that people

living in the locality mainly belongs to Mahishya

sub-caste community. Her mother also belongs to

Mahishya community before marriage. Various

people in the area including her family member

were questioned and from depositions, it appeared

that the Clan (Gotra) of the certificate holder was

Sandilya before marriage. In conversation with

other kith & kin it is found that their birth, death,

Marriage rituals & observation of religious festival

are like Mahishya Sub-Caste. The main profession

of the said area is hair processing and nothing

substantiate could be affirmed regarding the

profession of the ancestors of the said Khuku Rani

Mondal Ghorai.

However, Smt Khuku Rani Mondal Ghorai had

also given a written deposition in the form of an

11

affidavit in front of a 1" class Judicial Magistrate

that their ancestors belonged to OBC caste.

In the absence of any specific documents that

could establish her caste as OBC (Tanti,

Tantubaya) and on the basis of their current

profession, rituals, "gotra" the claim that the

incumbent belongs to Other Backward Classes,

could not be established. Hence, it appears to the

undersigned that the incumbent does not belong to

OBC.

Placed for kind necessary perusal of the Sub-

Divisional Officer Tamluk & the appropriate

Authority concerned.

Inspector (BCW)-

in-charge.

Chandipur Dev

Block, Purba

Medinipur

Joint Block

Development

Officer

Chandipur

Dev Block,

Purba

Medinipur

Block

Development

Officer

Chandipur

Dev Block

Purba

Medinipur.”

23. On receipt of receipt of report, the Sub-Divisional Officer conducted

hearing but during hearing also the private respondent failed to

produce documents that she belongs to OBC community, accordingly,

the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed an order on 23

rd July, 2025

which reads as follows:

“After hearing all parties and perusal of the

report submitted by the Block Development Officer,

Chandipur, it is concluded that Khukurani Mondal

Ghorai does not belong to the OBC community, sub-

caste “Tanti, Tantubaya”.

24. The first issue raised by the private respondent that the Sub-Divisional

Officer has not considered the guidelines for issuance of OBC

Certificate and cancelled the OBC Certificate. As per guidelines, the

12

Scrutiny Committee and District Vigilance Cell shall exclusively deal

with cases arising out of complaints in regard to impounding/

revocation of certificates. In the said guidelines, it is also clarified that

the provisions and procedures as applicable for similar actions for SC

and ST Certificates are applicable here mutatis mutandis.

25. In the case of Darvell Investment (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench

of this Court held that:

“Let me examine the statutory provisions in

West Bengal Act 4 of 2007 in that light.

Section 2(a) of the Act defines the ‘Committee’

as State Scrutiny Committee constituted under

section 8A for verification of social status of a

person in whose favour a caste certificate under

section 5 is issued. Section 8A(2) provides that the

Committee shall comprise of the Secretary of the

Backward Classes Department as Chairperson,

Commissioner, Directorate of Backward Classes

Welfare or his authorised representative not below

the rank of Deputy Director as Convenor and the

Director, Cultural Research Institute, Backward

Classes Welfare Department or his authorised

representative as an Expert Member.

Sub-section (1) of section 8A empowers the

said Committee to verify social status of a person in

whose favour a certificate is issued under section 5

of the Act. Section 9(2) of the Act lays down that the

Committee may upon due enquiry direct

cancellation of a caste certificate procured upon

false information, misrepresentation, suppression

or forgery. Such provisions, however, are not

exhaustive of the powers of the Committee. Sub-

section (3) of section 8A provides for other powers

of the said Committee too. Clause (c) of sub-section

8A(3) of the Act empowers the Committee to make

an enquiry in connection with contravention of any

provision of the said Act. Clause (e) thereof

authorises the Committee to call for information

from any person or authority for the purpose of

satisfying itself whether there has been any

13

contravention of any provisions of the Act or any

Rule or order made thereunder and clause (i) gives

power to the Committee to do such thing or act

which are not in consistent with the provision of the

law for the proper conduct of its functions which

may appear to the Committee to be necessary or

expedient for the proper conduct of its function.

Powers vested in the Committee under clauses

(c), (e) and (i) of section 8A(3) are couched in the

widest terms. It empowers the Committee to

enquire into contravention of any provision of the

Act, to seek information from any person or

authority in that regard and to perform such other

thing or act which may be necessary or expedient

for exercise of its functions which are not in

consistent with the Act. There is no express

embargo/prohibition in the Act disentitling the

Committee from enquiring into illegal cancellation of

caste certificate by Certificate Issuing Authority

under section 9(1) of the Act. Nor is an order of

cancellation issued under section 9(1) of the Act

final unlike an appellate order of refusal of caste

certificate under section 7(3) of the Act.

In view of the socio-legal background leading

to constitution of the Committee to weed out cases

of illegal and unjust deprivation of deserving

members of the SC/ST community from their

constitutional privileges, the high-powered

composition of the Committee comprising of senior

and experienced personnel and the wide and

unfettered amplitude of the words employed in

describing the powers of the Committee in sub-

clauses(c), (e) and (i) of section 8A(3) of the Act one

is persuaded to hold that such powers are

independent and not ancillary or incidental to the

power vested in the Committee under sub-section(1)

of section 8A of the Act.

Hence, we are unable to accept the contention

of the learned senior counsel of the appellants that

the powers of the Committee enumerated in section

8A(3) of the Act are not substantive in nature but

are ancillary and/or incidental to the powers of the

Committee as provided in sub-section (1) of section

14

8A of the Act. The ratio in Beedi Leaves (supra) is

therefore of no assistance to the appellants.

A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions

would make it clear that the intention of the

legislature was not to restrict the power of the State

Scrutiny Committee merely to verify social status of

persons in whose favour a certificate has been

illegally issued under section 5. The Committee is

empowered to look into all contraventions of any

provisions of the Act. An illegal cancellation of a

caste certificate issued under section 5 of the Act to

a member of the SC/ST community without

following the procedure laid down in section 9(1)

read with Rule 3 of the State Rules (as alleged in

this case) is undoubtedly a contravention of the

provisions of the Act which would be amenable to

the supervisory jurisdiction of the Committee under

section 8A(3)(c)(e) & (i) of the Act.

It is trite law that social legislations are to be

interpreted in a manner so that the benefits under

the said law may be extended to the members of

the socially backward community which it seeks to

protect. Reference may be made to Pandey

Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC

77 where the Apex Court while interpreting

beneficial provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act

enacted to protect the property rights of Scheduled

Caste community held as follows:

“7. The provision is beneficial and

the legislative intention is to extend

protection to a class of citizens who are

not in a position to keep their property to

themselves in the absence of protection.

Therefore, when the legislature is

extending special protection to the named

category, the Court has to give a liberal

construction to the protective mechanism

which would work out the protection and

enable the sphere of protection to be

effective than limit by (sic) the scope.”

Act of 1994 is a social legislation to identify

and acknowledge the status of members of the

scheduled caste and scheduled tribe by issuing

certificates under section 5 of the said Act so that

15

they may enjoy constitutional privileges reserved

for them.

Unjust and/or unfair cancellation of such

status by an authority without following the

procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules

framed thereunder would result in grave injustice

to such member of the socially and educationally

backward community.

State Scrutiny Committee is a high powered

expert body comprising of the most experienced

personnel who have the requisite expertise,

experience and machinery at their disposal to make

proper enquiry into the social status of an

individual whose caste certificate has been illegally

cancelled by the Certificate Issuing Authority in

contravention of the procedure provided under the

Act and the rules framed thereunder. To denude

the Committee of such jurisdiction by merely

referring to the definition clause in Section 2(a) or

its powers under section 8A(1) of the Act would

render the powers engrafted in clauses (c), (e) and

(i) of section 8A(3) otiose and redundant. Such an

interpretation would also militate against the real

intention of the legislature and deprive a deserving

member of the SC/ST community from ventilating

his grievances under the statutory scheme against

illegal cancellation of his caste certificate in

contravention of the provisions of the Act before the

high-powered expert body which is best suited to

enquire into such contraventions. To hold otherwise

would defeat both the letter and spirit of the law

which seeks to create a plenary expert body to

verify social status of individuals and ensure that

the deserving members of SC/ST community are

not deprived of their just constitutional privileges.

For the aforesaid reasons, it is opined that the

Committee has jurisdiction to enquire into

complaints of illegal cancellation of caste certificate

by the Certificate Issuing Authority in contravention

of the provisions of the Act under section 9(1) of the

Act and undertake verification of the social status

of the aggrieved person in connection therewith.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the

judgement and order passed by the learned Single

Judge is upheld.”

16

26. The Judgment of Darvell Investment (supra) was considered by the

another Bivision Bench of this Court in the case of Biswajit Das

(supra) wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that:

“20. We now move on to the point urged by

Mr. Bhattacharya. Having perused the decisions by

him, we are of the considered opinion that the view

expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Court

in Darvell Investment & Leasing (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra)

sounds the death-knell for the appellant. Having

considered the provisions of the 1994 Act, more

particularly sections 8A and 9, the Bench observed

that an illegal cancellation of a caste certificate

issued under section 5 of the 1994 Act to a member

of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community

without following the procedure laid down in

section 9(1) read with Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules

would undoubtedly be a contravention of the

provisions of the 1994 Act, which would be

amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the

Committee under section 8A(3)(c), (e) and (i) of the

1994 Act. It was also held in paragraph 49 as

follows:

“49. State Scrutiny Committee is a high

powered expert body comprising of the most

experienced personnel who have the requisite

expertise, experience and machinery at their

disposal to make proper enquiry into the social

status of an individual whose caste certificate

has been illegally cancelled by the Certificate

Issuing Authority in contravention of the

procedure provided under the Act and the

rules framed thereunder. To denude the

Committee of such jurisdiction by merely

referring to the definition clause in section 2(a)

or its powers under section 8A(1) of the Act

would render the powers engrafted in clauses

(c), (e) and (i) of section 8A(3) otiose and

redundant. Such an interpretation would also

militate against the real intention of the

legislature and deprive a deserving member of

the SC/ST community from ventilating his

grievances under the statutory scheme

against illegal cancellation of his caste

certificate in contravention of the provisions of

the Act before the high powered expert body

17

which is best suited to enquire into such

contraventions. To hold otherwise would

defeat both the letter and spirit of the law

which seeks to create a plenary expert body to

verify social status of individuals and ensure

that the deserving members of SC/ST

community are not deprived of their just

constitutional privileges.”

21. Having read the provisions of the 1994

Act, we find the absence of an appellate forum to

which an appeal could be carried against an order

cancelling a certificate under section 9(1) of the

1994 Act. We are inclined to the view that the

coordinate Bench was mindful of such absence in

the statute and had by judicial interpretation

recognized the Committee to be a forum who would

have supervisory jurisdiction in respect of orders

passed by a certificate issuing authority cancelling

certificates earlier issued, without observing the

procedure prescribed by the 1994 Act and rules

framed thereunder. We have also not found any

observation in the said decision that a certificate

issuing authority may not suo motu initiate

proceedings for cancellation/ impounding/

revocation of a certificate if the circumstances so

warrant or that a report of the Committee is a

condition precedent for initiation of such

proceeding.

22. Be that as it may, it is now time to note a

decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr.

Bhattacharya on harmonious construction.

23. In Sultana Begum (supra), the Supreme

Court in paragraph 15 captured the essence of all

the decisions considered by it on harmonious

construction by observing as follows:

“15. On a conspectus of the case-law

indicated above, the following principles are

clearly discernible:

(1) It is the duty of the courts to avoid a

head-on clash between two sections of the Act

and to construe the provisions which appear

to be in conflict with each other in such a

manner as to harmonise them.

18

(2) The provisions of one section of a

statute cannot be used to defeat the other

provisions unless the court, in spite of its

efforts, finds it impossible to effect

reconciliation between them.

(3) It has to be borne in mind by all the

courts all the time that when there are two

conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot

be reconciled with each other, they should be

so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be

given to both. This is the essence of the rule of

‘harmonious construction’.

(4) The courts have also to keep in mind

that an interpretation which reduces one of the

provisions as a ‘dead letter’ or ‘useless

lumber’ is not harmonious construction.

(5) To harmonise is not to destroy any

statutory provision or to render it otiose.”

24. We are also of the view, having read

section 9 of the 1994 Act again and again, that a

harmonious construction of sub-sections (1) and (2)

would result in ironing out the creases. Our reading

of section 9 read with Rule 3 of the West Bengal

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Identification) Rules, 1995 (hereafter the 1995

Rules) is this. In terms of sub-section (1) of section

9 read with sub-rule (1) of rule 3, either on a

complaint by any person or suo motu, the certificate

issuing authority upon recording a prima

facie satisfaction that a certificate under the 1994

Act has been obtained by any person by furnishing

any false information or by misrepresenting any

fact or by suppression of any material information

or by producing any document which is an act of

forgery, may start proceedings for cancellation,

impounding or revocation of the certificate, as the

case may be. Once the proceedings are

commenced, the procedure prescribed in sub-rules

(2) to (4) of rule 3 of the 1995 Rules shall be

followed and the proceeding shall be taken to its

logical conclusion by an order in writing and,

thereafter, further steps as is provided for in sub-

rules (5) and (6) are to be taken. The certificate

issuing authority also has the power under sub-

rule (7) to launch criminal prosecution. Reading of

section 9(1) with rule 3 does not impose any

obligation on the certificate issuing authority to

19

obtain any report of the Committee. If at all the

certificate issuing authority in its exercise of power

to cancel, impound and/or revoke a certificate

contravenes the provisions of section 9(1) read with

rule 3(1), it would be open to the aggrieved party to

invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Committee

constituted under section 8A for redress.

25. What section 9(2) provides is this. Since it

starts with a non-obstante clause, nothing

contained in section 9(1) would fetter the power of

the Committee to cancel, impound or revoke a

certificate which might have been issued to a

person based on false information/

misrepresentation of fact/ suppression of material

information/ production of a forged document. The

intent of the legislation is that even if the certificate

issuing authority does not initiate any proceeding

under section 9(1), the Committee may, acting as

the original authority, initiate proceedings for

cancellation, impounding or revocation of a

certificate that has been issued to a person based

on such false information, misrepresentation,

suppression, production of forged document.

26. Our reading of the decision of the

coordinate Bench in Darvell Investment & Leasing

(I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is that, a person whose caste

certificate is cancelled could make the order of

cancellation amenable to the supervisory

jurisdiction of the Committee or challenge such

action by approaching the writ court in an

appropriate case.

27. Although the decision in Bikash Chandra

Mahata (supra) lays down that the certificate

issuing authority has no authority to cancel a

scheduled caste certificate issued in favour of a

person and such act is without jurisdiction, we find

that such a finding has been returned based on the

first Madhuri Patil decision (supra) without

considering the effect of section 9(1) of the Act read

with rule 3 of the 1995 Rules, as well as the

interpretation of section 9(2) of the Act by the

coordinate Bench in Darvell Investment & Leasing

(I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We are not inclined to the view

that the decision in Bikash Chandra

20

Mahata (supra) lays down the law correctly and

accordingly, we record our respectful disagreement

therewith.

28. The first and the second Madhuri

Patil decisions (supra) have been perused. It

appears that even before the first Madhuri

Patil decision (supra), the 1994 Act was enacted in

the State of West Bengal. Considering that the

issue emanating for decision is covered by

legislation, we hold that any observation made in

the decisions in Madhuri Patil (supra) would only

be of persuasive value.

29. Law is well-settled that when a person

who is not a member of a scheduled caste/tribe

obtains a false certificate with a view to gain undue

advantage to which he is/was not otherwise

entitled, that would amount to commission of fraud

calling for immediate corrective action so as to

prevent subversion of the constitutional purpose

and no leniency can be shown.

30. Having heard our tentative views

expressed in course of hearing and having realized

that the decision in Darvell Investment & Leasing (I)

Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by judicial interpretation of

sections 8A and 9 of the 1994 Act has recognized a

power of supervisory jurisdiction being vested in

the Committee, Mr. Bhattacharya prayed that

Biswajit may be permitted to raise his grievance

before the Committee against the order of the SDO

cancelling his certificate.

31. We are afraid, the prayer need not be

allowed in view of the third point raised by Mr.

Dutta to the effect that the certificate issuing

authority had assigned appropriate reason for

cancellation of the certificate issued in favour of

Biswajit.”

27. In the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of the order

passed by this Court initiated proceeding against the private

respondent for enquiry of the OBC Certificate obtained by the private

21

respondent. The Sub-Divisional Officer before coming to conclusion

that the private respondent does not belong to OBC category, has

constituted a Committee. The private respondent has appeared before

the Committee and has not raised any objection of constitution of

Committee. The Committee has submitted report. The private

respondent has also not challenged the said report either before the

Sub-Divisional Officer or in the present writ application.

28. The private respondent has taken a specific plea that some of the

documents have been lost in cyclone and some of the documents has

been lost during travelling but she has not given the description of the

documents, which she was relying. As per guidelines, the applicants

has to fulfill the following criteria:

“a) The applicant must be a citizen of India.

b) He has to be a permanent resident of West

Bengal since 15/3/1993.

c) He is an ordinary resident at the address

currently residing.

d) He belongs to the said category he/she claims to

belong to.

e) His identity.

f) The the applicant does not fall under ‘creamy

layer’.”

29. In the report of the Committee, it reveals that the private respondent

has not given any specific documents that could be established her

caste as OBC. In the report, it is also mentioned that the people

residing in the locality of Chandipur Development Block are mainly

22

belongs to Mahishya sub-caste community and her mother also belongs

to same community before her marriage. On enquiry from various

people of that area including the family members of the private

respondent, the Committee finds that their Clan (Gotra) was Sandilya

before marriage.

30. Now the respondent authorities have also issued a notice to the private

respondent to submit her OBC Certificate in the Office of the Sub-

Divisional Officer.

31. This Court did not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer dated 23

rd July, 2025, holding that the private

respondent does not belong to OBC community, sub-caste “Tanti,

Tantubaya”.

32. Once the Sub-Divisional Officer come to the conclusion that the private

respondent does not belong to OBC community, the Sub-Divisional

Officer ought to have passed an order of cancellation of the OBC

Certificate of the private respondent but till date no action is being

taken for cancellation of the OBC Certificate of private respondent.

33. In view of the above, the Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to take

appropriate immediate steps for cancellation of the OBC certificate of

Smt. Khukurani Mondal Ghorai, the private respondent in WPA No.

21813 of 2025, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt

of this order.

23

34. WPA No. 21813 of 2025 is allowed. WPA No. 20033 of 2025 is

dismissed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)