Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin Bagri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
1 WP-11659-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11659 of 2018
NITIN BAGRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Gajendra Parashar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed assailing the order dated 13/06/2017 passed by respondent No.4,
whereby cases of the petitioners for grant of caste certificate has been
rejected in an arbitrary manner without giving any opportunity of hearing to
them and contrary to the order passed by Collector who has decided the
Appeal in favour of the petitioners.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the residents of District
Katni and belong to Bagri caste which is notified as a Scheduled Caste under
the Presidential Order 1950. The name of Bagri caste is mentioned at S.No.2
in the list. Father of the petitioners was issued a caste certificate and a
domicile certificate on 08/02/1991 by respondent No.5. Petitioners’ father
was appointed in the office of District Commandment Armed Force as a
Constable on the basis of caste certificate which was issued by the
Authorities. The revenue records from year 1957 to 1965 reflects the caste of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
2 WP-11659-2018
the petitioners’ grandfather as Bagri and so also in the school register.
Petitioners No.1 and 2 applied for grant of caste certificate through his father
and petitioner No.3 applied for caste certificate before respondent No.4 but
their claims have been rejected by order dated 28/03/2017. They preferred an
Appeal before the Collector. The said Appeal was allowed by order dated
23/05/2017. The said order was not challenged before any of the Courts,
therefore the said order has attained finality. Vide order dated 23/05/2017,
respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4 to issue caste certificate within
a period of 15 days but the same was not complied with. Therefore, a Writ
Petition No.20805/2017 was filed before this Court which was disposed of
vide order dated 05/12/2017 with certain directions. Thereafter, a Review
Petition being R.P. No.1415/2017 was preferred by the Government before
this Court. The Review Petition was allowed on 16/03/2018 and liberty was
extended to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer in appropriate proceedings.
3. It is argued that the order dated 13/06/2017 has been issued without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the same is contrary
to the order passed by the Collector. Therefore, petitioners are challenging
the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer by filing the present petition on
the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them and principles
of natural justice and fair play have been violated in the matter by the
respondents Authority. Respondents have not considered the claim of
petitioners in proper perspective. They have not conducted any enquiry prior
to rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Even the order passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
3 WP-11659-2018
superior Authority i.e. Collector directing the Sub Divisional Officer for
issuance of a caste certificate has not been complied by the Sub Divisional
Officer. Therefore, the same is bad in law. He has prayed for quashment of
the order passed by the Authority with a further direction to issue caste
certificate to the petitioners in pursuance to the order passed by the
Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon an
order dated 05/09/2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in
Writ Petition No.26493/2018, wherein the Court while disposing of the Writ
Petition has made an observation that the scrutiny committee found Bagri
community hailing from Malwa who was doing work of theft and dacoity
and was recognised as a criminal caste and while allowing the Writ Petition,
the Court held that the petitioner is entitled for getting benefits applicable to
him belonging to Bagri community.
4 . On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondents.
They have denied the petition averments. It is argued that a detailed enquiry
was conducted by Tehsildar, Dhimarkheda with respect to claim raised by
the petitioners. The report shows that the person who belongs to Bagri Caste
is mainly residing in districts Ujjain, Sajapur, Guna, Rajgarh and in terms of
letter dated 14/07/2003 issued by the SC Welfare Department, the person
who belongs to Bagri caste who are residing in Mahakaushal, Vindhya and
Bundelkhand region are not eligible for the benefit of SC caste. Considering
the aforesaid the Authority has passed a detailed order. The enquiry report as
well as the letter dated 14/07/2023 are not put to challenge at any point of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
4 WP-11659-2018
time. They have categorically stated that prior to passing of the order,
petitioners were not heard but hearing petitioners will be an empty formality
because in terms of the Scheduled Caste Commission letter, the persons who
are residing at Mahakaushal, Vindhya or Bundelkhand region are not eligible
for grant of Scheduled Caste certificate with respect to Bagri caste.
Admittedly, petitioners are the residents of Mahakaushal region, therefore
not entitled for any relief in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the order passed by
the Authority was rightly passed. He has prayed for dismissal of the Writ
Petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied for issuance of caste
certificate of Bagri community based upon the records of their ancestors.
The claim of the petitioners was rejected by Sub Divisional Officer initially,
but on Appeal being preferred, Collector vide order dated 23/05/2017 has
allowed the claim of the petitioners. Collector has categorically observed that
the caste Bagri belonging to SC community is clearly reflected in the
Presidential notification which was issued in the year 1950 and name of
Bagri caste is mentioned at S.No.2 in the said list.
7 . The aforesaid aspect was not taken note of by the Sub Divisional
Officer while passing the impugned order. The respondents while passing the
impugned order has taken note of the letter issued by the Schedule Caste
Welfare Department dated 14/07/2003 which shows that the person
belonging to Bagri caste who is residing in Mahakaushal, Vindhya or
Bundelkhand region is not eligible for extension of benefits of SC caste. But
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
5 WP-11659-2018
the fact remains that the impugned order has been passed without providing
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
8. Petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon the order passed in the
case of Rajendra Kumar (supra), wherein while considering the case of
Rajendra Kumar, who belongs to Bagri community, the High Power Caste
Scrutiny Committee has observed that person Bagri community hailing from
Malwa who was doing the work of theft and dacoity are recognised as a
criminal caste belong to Bagri community and while allowing the Writ
Petition has observed that the petitioner is entitled to all benefits as
applicable to him belonging to Bagri caste. In terms of the observation made
by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the letter issued by the
Scheduled Caste Welfare Department lost its gravity. Therefore, prior to
passing the impugned order, at least an opportunity of hearing should have
been granted to the petitioners. The impugned order does not reflect
consideration of the case of the petitioners as far as their forefathers are
concerned. It was the specific case of the petitioners that their father belongs
to Bagri community and he was issued a caste certificate.
9. The said aspects were not taken into consideration while passing the
impugned order by the Authority. Even otherwise, opportunity of hearing
was not granted as has been admitted by the respondents in their reply.
10. The principles of natural justice and fair play should have been
adhered to by the authorities. The Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
recently in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy vs. State of M.P. and others
reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 248 with respect to principle of natural
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
6 WP-11659-2018
justice and fair play considering the earlier judgments passed in the cases
o f Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; S.N. Mukherjee v.
Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594; Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v.
Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981; CCI v. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744; Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 and in the case
of AK Kraipak v Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 has held as under:-
“16. In this case, our primary focus is on procedural
impropriety and in particular, the breach of the principles of
natural justice. The process for arriving at a decision is
equally significant as the decision itself. If the procedure is
not ‘fair’, the decision cannot be possibly endorsed. The
principles of natural justice as derived from common law
which guarantee ‘fair play in action’, has two facets which
include rule against bias and the rule of fair hearing.
Additionally, a reasoned order has also been regarded as a
third facet of the principles of natural justice and holds
utmost significance in ensuring fairness of the process.
17. The first issue that falls for our consideration is whether
the selection stands vitiated on the ground of violation of
the rule against bias. It must be borne in mind that when a
statute specifies the procedure for administrative decision
making, the principles of natural justice supplement but do
not substitute the statutory procedure. However, even if the
statute does not provide for the administrative procedure,
the authorities are bound to make decisions adherence to
the principles of natural justice.”
11 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Restaurant vs
Municipal Corpn., reported in (1982) 3 SCC 338 wherein it has been held as
under :
“5. Where, in order to carry on business a licence is
required, obviously refusal to give licence or cancellation
or revocation of licence would be visited with both civil
and pecuniary consequences and as the business cannot be
carried on without the licence it would also affect the
livelihood of the person. In such a situation before either
refusing to renew the licence or cancelling or revoking the
same, the minimum principle of natural justice of noticeSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:242387 WP-11659-2018
and opportunity to represent one’s case is a must. It is not
disputed that no such opportunity was given before taking
the decision not to renew the licence though it is admitted
that for the reasons hereinbefore set out the licence was not
renewed. Such a decision in violation of the minimum
principle of natural justice would be void. Now, it is true
that no specific order is made setting out the reasons for
refusal to renew the licence. But the action taken of sealing
the premises for carrying on the business without a licence
clearly implies that there was refusal to renew the licence
and the reasons are now disclosed. And the action
disclosing the decision being in violation of the principle of
natural justice, deserves to be quashed.”
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India,
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 has held as under :
“221. It is well established that even where there is no
specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for
showing cause against action proposed to be taken against
an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the
duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be
implied from the nature of the function to be performed by
the authority which has the power to take punitive or
damaging action. This principle was laid down by this
Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [AIR
1967 SC 1269, 1271 : (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ
266] in the following words:
“The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is
intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike
to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with
authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil
consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our
constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against
exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.
Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very
nature of the function intended to be performed : it need
not be shown to be superadded. If there is power to decide
and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act
judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the
essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice
of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic
concept of the rule of law and importance thereof
transcends the significance of a decision in any particular
case.”
13. In the case of CCI vs SAIL , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 744 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
8 WP-11659-2018
“66. The issue of notice and hearing are squarely
covered under the ambit of the principles of natural
justice. Thus, it will not be inappropriate to discuss
these issues commonly under the same head. The
principle of audi alteram partem, as commonly
understood, means “hear the other side or hear both
sides before a decision is arrived at”. It is founded on
the rule that no one should be condemned or deprived of
his right even in quasi-judicial proceedings unless he
has been granted liberty of being heard.”
1 4 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9
SCC 496 has held as under:-
“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court
holds:-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only
be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on relevant grounds and
by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as
observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional governance
is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant
facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial
decision making justifying the principle that reason isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:242389 WP-11659-2018
the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the judges and authorities who
deliver them. All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively considered. This
is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the
justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both
judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent,
clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-
stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision
making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine
qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the
judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harward Law Review 731-737).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making,
the said requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para
29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ
405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
European Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for
judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of law, requirement of
giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “Due Process”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24238
10 WP-11659-2018
15. If the aforesaid proposition is applied to the fact and circumstances
of the present case, it is clear that all the grounds which have been raised by
the petitioners in support of their claim for Bagri community should have
been considered by the Authorities prior to passing the impugned order and
reasons should have been assigned in the impugned order and full
opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioners to demonstrate
their case, which has not been done by Sub Divisional Officer while passing
the impugned order.
16. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable. It
is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Authorities for
reconsideration of the case of the petitioners.
17. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
18. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-03-2026
18:04:46
