Expeditious Disposal of Permanent Caste Certificate Application Following Issuance of Temporary Social Status Certificate

The petitioner, a minor represented by his father, claimed to belong to the "Darji" (Muslim) caste, which is recognized as an Other Backward Class (OBC) in Chhattisgarh

Although the petitioner was issued a temporary Social Status Certificate on October 2, 2022, his application for a permanent certificate remained pending before the Tahsildar, Ambikapur, despite the lapse of significant time

The petitioner asserted that his father holds a valid caste certificate and family records support the claim

Aggrieved by the administrative delay, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the issuance of the permanent certificate

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

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

Rules of 2013 framed under the Act of 2013 govern the procedure, verification, and issuance of social status certificates in the State of Chhattisgarh to ensure that eligible individuals can avail of constitutional and statutory benefits

The Court noted that the petitioner’s application had been pending since 2022, a duration it deemed excessive given the nature of the request

The Court observed that the petitioner already possessed a temporary certificate and that his father held a recognized caste certificate, which established a prima facie basis for the claim

It reasoned that the failure of the competent authority (Tahsildar) to adjudicate the application caused "serious prejudice" by preventing the petitioner from accessing OBC benefits

Consequently, the Court found that the interest of justice required a time-bound direction to the executive to perform its statutory duty under the Act of 2013

The Court held that the authority must afford the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing and, if any documentation is deficient, must inform the petitioner and provide a reasonable opportunity to rectify such deficiency before passing a reasoned order