Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranajit Rakshit vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 February, 2026
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 23rd 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
15th 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 23rd
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 15th 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 1st 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 25th June, 2025.
15. Mr. Kapas, during hearing of the case, has handed over the
Memorandum issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 30th
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 30th 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 10th 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 15th 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 15th 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
11affidavit 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)- Joint Block Block
in-charge. Development Development
Chandipur Dev Officer Officer
Block, Purba Chandipur Chandipur
Medinipur Dev Block, Dev Block
Purba Purba
Medinipur 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 23rd 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
13contravention 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
17which 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 23rd 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.)
