The Supreme Court found the claims questionable due to lack of supporting evidence.

In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017 was filed by M/s DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS against THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS. The appeal challenges a judgment from the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which upheld an order passed by a Single Judge.

The main issue in this case revolves around the cancellation of a caste certificate issued to respondent No. 15. The facts of the case include the sale of land by late Ramanand Baraik to various individuals between 1980 and 1983. Late Ramanand Baraik, who worked as a driver with the Corporation, never claimed Scheduled Tribe status during his service. His son, respondent No. 15, obtained a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate in 1993.

However, respondent No. 15 later sold land without seeking permission as required under the law. A complaint was filed against these land transactions, but it was initially dismissed. Later, respondent No. 15 challenged these sales in 2004, alleging that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community.

The case goes through various legal proceedings, including the cancellation of the caste certificate and appeals to different authorities. Ultimately, the Committee opined that the caste certificate was canceled inappropriately and revoked the order, leading to further legal challenges by the appellants.

The main argument presented by the appellants is that the Committee did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the cancellation of the caste certificate. They also question the authenticity of respondent No. 15’s claims.

On the other hand, respondents No. 15 to 18 argue that the Committee did have jurisdiction, and they defend the cancellation of the caste certificate.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court found that the conduct of the respondents, particularly their delayed challenges and the lack of supporting evidence, raised questions about their claims. The Court did not delve into the jurisdiction issue but instead decided to allow the appeal.

AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)
decided on Dec 8, 2023


Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.