'Authorities Deciding Valuable Constitutional Rights So Cryptic In Their Consideration': Calcutta HC Sets Aside BDO's Order Denying OBC Certificate
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, ex parte set aside an order of the Block Development Officer- Domjur (“BDO”), affirmed by the Sub-divisional Officer (“SDO”), which rejected the claim of the petitioner for an Other Backward Classes (“OBC”) certificate, without allowing him an opportunity for hearing or to produce relevant documents in support of his application. In...
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, ex parte set aside an order of the Block Development Officer- Domjur (“BDO”), affirmed by the Sub-divisional Officer (“SDO”), which rejected the claim of the petitioner for an Other Backward Classes (“OBC”) certificate, without allowing him an opportunity for hearing or to produce relevant documents in support of his application.
In dismissing the BDO's enquiry report as “cryptic”, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya emphasised on the sanctity of the petitioners Constitutional Rights, and directed the BDO to consider the petitioner's claim afresh on merits and pass a reasoned order within six weeks. It held:
“It is surprising that when the rights asserted by a person to fall under a Constitutional category is being considered, such a cryptic “enquiry report” is placed on record, which forms the very basis of rejection of such claim. The matter then went up to the appellate authority, that is, the Additional District Magistrate (DEV) Howrah, who, vide order dated November 24, 2021, affirmed the observation of the BDO. The appellate authority merely recorded that there was no concrete evidence found in favour of the appeal in connection with the rejection of the OBC caste certificate application of the petitioner; hence, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and disposed of.
It is unhappy that the said authorities, who decide valuable Constitutional rights of persons, are so cryptic in their consideration of such claims. Not a single document produced by the petitioner and annexed in the present writ petition was considered by the authorities, nor was any fruitful hearing given to the petitioner. No opportunity is found to have been given to the petitioner to produce his documents in support of his claim.
The petitioner in the present case, had applied for an OBC certificate to the BDO, Domjur. It was alleged by the petitioner that the Block Development Officer, as well as the Sub-divisional officer in appeal, rejected his application and failed to consider the documents presented by him, or to allow him a hearing to provide supporting paperwork in furtherance of his claim.
The petitioner alleged that the BDO and SDO instead chose to rely on an “enquiry report” to summarily reject his claim, and that such a report was never made available to him.
Due to the absence of the respondent-authorities from the final hearing, even after repeated accommodations, the Court took up the hearing ex parte.
While dealing with the “enquiry report”, the Bench noted that the same was “extremely cryptic” and noted that several documents had been annexed by the petitioner, none of which had been relied on by the authorities. It said:
The enquiry report, on the basis of which the BDO took the call of rejecting the petitioner’s application…is extremely cryptic. [It] states that, at the time of legal enquiry, it was revealed that the applicant’s family is a permanent resident of the area and as per verbal declaration of the neighbours and relatives, some of whom had been named, it was revealed that the applicant’s family belongs to General Caste community and their sub-caste is “Sadgope”. The note-sheet…merely indicates that, as per enquiry report from the BDO, Domjur, the sub-caste of the applicant was asserted to be clearly “SADGOPE”, which is a General Caste. Hence, as per the enquiry report of BDO, the review may not be considered. Mere enquiry from a few persons in the locality is nothing more than an eye-wash, particularly in view of several documents having been produced by the petitioner including certificates by certain authorities and other documents in support of his claim, which have not been considered at all.
In parting, the Court set aside the impugned order of rejection, while directing the BDO to consider the petitioners application afresh, and held:
Hence, WPA No.21320 of 2021 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s claim for OBC certificate and remanding the matter back to the concerned Block Development Officer for a fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner. The BDO shall, within six weeks from the date of the communication of this order to the BDO, undertake a fresh enquiry, by calling for a report afresh and giving the petitioner and/or his duly authorized representative an opportunity of producing all documents in support of the petitioner’s claim and to deal with the enquiry report by furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner and/or his representative. It is made clear that, whichever way the BDO goes, it will be open to either of the parties to prefer a challenge against the BDO’s decision before the appellate authority. None of the authorities-in-question shall be influenced in manner on merits by any of the observations made herein, but will undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law as directed above.”
Case: Susanta Ghosh v The State of West Bengal and others
Coram: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 206