[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 12 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010200542018
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6212/2018
NITASHA DAS AND 5 ORS.
D/O. SRI AJANTA NARAYAN DAS, R/O. HOUSE NO. 164, CHHAYGAON, P.O.
AND P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM-781124.
2: ASHABARI DAS
D/O. SRI NARAYAN CH. DAS @ NARAYAN DAS
R/O. WARD NO. 14
NABA GOPAL SARMA ROAD
HAILAKANDI
P.O. AND P.S. HAILAKANDI
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM-788152.
3: ANUP DAS
S/O. SRI JOGESH CH. DAS
R/O. VILL. GOSAIGAON (MANGALDAI)
P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM-784125.
4: DEVID KUMAR MALI
S/O. SRI BOLINDRA MALI
R/O. VILL. BAIHATA
P.O. BAIHATA
P.S. KAMALPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM-781380.
5: TAMAL BISWAS
S/O. SRI SUBRATA BISWAS
Page No.# 2/6
R/O. TILAK DEKA ROAD
NAGAON TOWN
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. NAGAON SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM-782001.
6: MS. BIPASHA ROY
D/O. SRI PRODIP KUMAR ROY
R/O. VILL. PINNAGAR
P.O. GIRISH GANJ BAZAR
P.S. KARIMGANJ
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM-788734
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., WP(T) AND BC DEPTT., DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
HOME DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781007.
4:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE
JORHAT DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM-785001.
5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
JORHAT P.S. AT JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM-785001.
6:SRI ABHIJIT HAZARIKA
Page No.# 3/6
THE PRESIDENT
JORHAT DISTRICT COMMITTEE
ALL ASSAM SCHEDULE CASTE STUDENTS UNION JORHAT
P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM-785001.
7:JAYANTA DAS SHASTRI
THE SECRETARY
JORHAT DISTRICT COMMITTEE
ALL ASSAM SCHEDULE CASTE STUDENTS UNION JORHAT
P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT
DIST. JORBAT
ASSAM-785001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, MR. A R SHOME,MR. S CHAUHAN,MS S K
CHAUHAN,MR. P MAZUMDER,MR. N ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,MR R
M DAS
Linked Case : WP(C)/3528/2019
BIPASHA ROY
D/O SRI PRODIP KUMAR ROY
R/O VILL. PINNAGAR
P.O. GIRISHGANJ BAZAR
P.S. KARIMGANJ
DIST.-KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN-788710
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
HOME DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
GOVT. OF ASSAM
WPT AND BC DEPTT. DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006
Page No.# 4/6
3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
4:THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPTT.
REP. THROUGH ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
5:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
CID POLICE STATION
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
6:THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER (I/O)
CID P.S. CASE NO. 05/2019 REGISTERED U/S 120B/468/471 IPC
7:JAYANTA MOHAN DAS
CHIEF SECRETARY
CONFEDERATION OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND TRIBE ORGANIZATIONS
(COSCTO) S/O LT. GANDHI DAS
VILL. SONPUR
WARD NO. 9
P.O. NALBARI
P.S. NALBARI
DIST.-NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335
------------
Advocate for : MR. S CHAUHAN
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
12-08-2025
Both the writ petitions being filed with identical causes of action are taken up for
an analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common order.
In the first writ petition being WP(C)/6212/2018, there are 6 nos. of petitioners
Page No.# 5/6
whereas in the second writ petition, i.e. WP(C)/3528/2019, there is one petitioner.
As per the facts projected, all the petitioners were admitted in the Jorhat Medical
College in the MBBS Course under the Schedule Caste (SC) Category. While they were
pursuing their course, FIR was lodged by an organization, namely, All Assam Schedule
Caste Students Union whereby it was stated that the claim of the petitioners to fall
under SC category was false. Based on the said FIR, police case was lodged and at
that stage, the petitioners had approached this Court.
While these cases were considered at the motion stage, this Court had taken into
consideration the law laid down in this subject by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors. reported (1994) 6 SCC 241 . As per the said decision, an
allegation of the present nature is to be looked into by a Scrutiny Committee which
has already been constituted pursuant to such guidelines. This Court was also
apprised of a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Abhishek Chandra @
Sachin Besarya Vs State of Tripura & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) GLT 431.
Shri S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that resorting
to filing of a police case is not permissible in view of such guidelines and it is the
jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee which has been constituted as per the direction
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) which will have the authority to look
into the matter.
Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel has submitted that the competent authority
to look into a dispute of the present nature would be Scrutiny Committee. He has
however added that in case the present petitions are allowed, the complainant in this
case may be permitted to approach the competent committee as the issue involves
are serious wherein the interest of genuine candidates who would be deprived of are
involved.
Shri C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Empowerment Department has
endorsed the views expressed by the learned State Counsel.
Page No.# 6/6
This Court has perused the Office Notes connected to this writ petitions from where it
appears that the private respondents who were the complainants have been served
and they have chosen not to appear.
The issue involved is with regard to the action of the private respondents to
lodge police case on the suspicion that the petitioners, who had taken admission into
the MBBS Course in the Jorhat Medical College on the basis of SC category do not
actually belong to the said category. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the parties, such issues are to be looked into by the duly constituted Scrutiny
Committee as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra). Taking recourse of lodging an FIR would not be the correct
recourse of action. This Court has also noted that while issuing notice, there is an
interim order not to proceed further with the respective police cases.
After considering of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. Accordingly, the
police cases being Jorhat PS Case No. 401/2018 registered under Section 420/468/471
IPC and CID PS Case No. 5/2019 registered u/s 120-B/468/471 IPC are quashed.
The present order however shall not be a predicament for the private respondents to
take up the issue before the duly constituted Scrutiny Committee as indicated above.
Both the writ petitions accordingly stand allowed.
Interim order passed earlier made absolute.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link