HC dismisses plea against rejection of ST certificate, imposes Rs 10,000 costs
16/07/2026
JAMMU, Jul 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for a Scheduled Tribe (Central Format) certificate and the withdrawal of an earlier Scheduled Tribe (UT Format) certificate, holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy which he failed to exhaust before invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the petition filed by Ali Haider Shah after hearing Advocate Sheikh Najeeb for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli for the respondents.
The Court observed that the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, and the Rules framed thereunder provide a complete mechanism of appeal and revision against orders relating to issuance or rejection of category certificates. It held that the petitioner had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
The Court noted that the competent authority had withdrawn the petitioner's earlier Scheduled Tribe (UT Format) certificate and rejected his subsequent application for a Scheduled Tribe (Central Format) certificate after recording reasons that, as per the Patwari Halqa report, he was not eligible under the Pahari Ethnic Group category since he was a resident of District Reasi.
Justice Nargal further held that the petitioner had challenged only the e-mail communications conveying the decisions while withholding the reasoned orders forming the basis of the action. The Court observed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and had not approached the Court with the fairness and candour expected of a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Registry of the High Court within four weeks. However, it clarified that the petitioner would remain at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal or revision before the competent authority, which shall decide the matter in accordance with law on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|