Full Text
PRAKASHNAGAR
Petitioner
Through Mr.Ajay M.Lai, Advocate.
•' - ',
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & ORS..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Lau, ASC /with Mr.Siddarth Sindhu, Adv. for State.
SI Sandeep Malik from P.S.Dwarka.
Mr.Shivam Bajaj, Adv. for ,R-5 to
' R-8.- •
V' CORAM: ' • ^
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEEt KAUR
^ n .01.2018 r. The prayers in the j)etition haye been perused. The petitioner has sought an inquiry to be conducted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 qua the certificates relied upon by respondent nps.6,7 and 8 claiming themselves, to be a. "schedule tribe" when they are actually, a
"schedule caste". This petition is bordered largely on the RTI information which has been obtained by the petitioner which
- according to him, reveal that respondent nos.6,7 and 8 are not a schedule tribe but in fact are a schedule caste and the certificates of schedule tribe relied upon by them are wrong and fraudulent certificates; respondent nos.1 to 4 (State and the police) should register an FIR against the ening respondents namely respondent nos.6 to 8. .
2018:DHC:8654
ORDER
2. Record shows that it was,on the complaint of respondent no.6,[7] and 8 that the FIR (FIR No.440/2014) was registered, against the petitioner. This FIR had been registered on 11.7.2014 at police station Dwarka under Sections 3(l)(2)/3(2)/3(l)(10) of the.Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The averments in the FIR have also been perused. In this FIR the complainant (respondent no.5) has alleged, that,.he belongs to a scheduled tribe community. The petitioner had been harassing him and had humiliated him. He had committed theft in his house. Further contents of the FIR may not be gone into for the purposes of this petition. Pursuant to his complaint the aforenoted FIR was registered. ',. /
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently points out that respondent nos.[6] to 8 are not members of,any scheduled tribe, they in fact are a scheduled caste. This is'clear froni the information which ' has been obtainedJby the petitionerpursuant to his RTI inquiry (Pages 54,55 and 56 of the paper book). They haVe been issued scheduled caste certificates and not a scheduled tribe ceitificate. They have wrongly stated thatthey are a scheduled tribe. An inquiry should be initiated by the concerned,SDM againstthem. • 4. _ These submissions have been countered.
5. Learned'counsel for respondent nos.1to 4have filed two status reports. A status report has been filed by respondent nos.1and 2 and a separate status report has been fifed by respondent nos[3] and 4. In the status report filed by respondent nos.l and 2 ithas been stated that the record of their Department: shows that the scheduled tribe certificates relied upon by respondent nos.[6] to 8 are computer generated information and they reveal that the, schedule tribe certificate nos. 9640011910, 9640011911 and 9640011913 had been issued by the Executive Magistrate, Palam in the year 2007. If the is petitioner still aggrieved by the manner in which the certificates have been issued he may approach the concerned SDM seeking cancellation of these certificates. It is reiterated that as per the record of the Department these certificates had been issued as scheduled tribe certificates.
6. The stand of respondent nos.[3] to 4 is also clear. Respondent nos.[3] to 4 have stated that the complaint was registered on the statement of the complainant who had stated that they have been issued scheduled tribe certificates. In fact, the aforenoted certificates have been placed on record along with the counter affidavit of respondent nos.l and 2. The certificate numbers mentioned therein match the certificate numbers mentioned by respondent nos.[3] and 4 who have stated that these certificates were issued as schedule tribe certificates to respondent nos.[6] to 8 by the, SDM, Palam and they were computer generated documents. These documents appended along with counter affidavit of respondent nos.l and 2 clearly show that these are scheduled caste/scheduled tribe certificates. They are in the alternate i.e. the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe certificates. The averments in the complaint also disclose that respondent nos.[6] to 8 claim themselves to be members of a scheduled tribe.
7. The submission of the petitioner that the respondents have made a wrong statement and they are actually scheduled caste which is evident from the RTI information is a submission which carries no weight as the certificate numbers admittedly match and the RTI information obtained by the petitioners do not give different certificate numbers i.e. numbers other,than those upon which reliance has been placed upon by any of the respondents. All the respondents including the private respondents have relied upon the same certificate numbers which at the cost of repetition speak of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe certificates. The information obtained under the RTI are computer generated. If the petitioner still has any grievance against these certificates issued in the year 2007 by the SDM, Palam, he is at liberty to approach the SDM. No orders can be passed in this petition.
8. This petition has no merit. It is dismissed.
JANUARY 11, 2018 ndn r INDERMEET KAUR, J m 9APT| 1^ ' jI(] •