Competent Authority must decide permanent caste certificate applications within a prescribed timeline following issuance of temporary certificates.

The petitioner, a 23-year-old resident of Ambikapur, identifies as belonging to the "Darji" (Muslim) caste, which is recognized as an Other Backward Class (OBC) in Chhattisgarh

A temporary Social Status Certificate was issued to her on October 2, 2022 (Application No. 0705012215003507)

Furthermore, her father was issued an OBC caste certificate in 1997

Despite fulfilling all procedural requirements, the respondent authorities (Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar) failed to issue a permanent certificate or pass a final order, allegedly expressing inability only orally

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel the issuance of the permanent certificate to avail educational and statutory benefits

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to decide the petitioner’s application for a permanent Social Status Certificate within a definitive timeframe under the applicable state regulations

Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, and the Rules of 2013 framed thereunder

Mandamus, which empowers the judiciary to direct public officials to perform a statutory duty that they have failed to exercise

The Court observed that the petitioner had already been granted a temporary certificate in 2022 and had submitted corroborative evidence, including her father’s 1997 caste certificate and the family ration card

The Court noted that the prolonged inaction by the Tahsildar/Competent Authority caused "serious prejudice" to the petitioner by hindering her access to OBC-related benefits

Since the State counsel did not oppose the prayer for a time-bound resolution, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be met not by adjudicating the merits of the caste claim itself, but by requiring the authority to exercise its statutory jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the authority must act "strictly in accordance with law" and provide a "reasoned and speaking order" after affording the petitioner a fair hearing

The Court held that if additional documentation or clarification is required, the authority must communicate this to the petitioner within a reasonable time and grant her an opportunity to furnish such proof

The Court clarified it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's caste status, leaving the final independent decision to the competent authority