Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. We had, in our order dated 04.09.2019, opined that the order passed by us in WPPIL No.76 of 2019 dated 22.07.2019, directing the respondents to
complete the inquiry, take a decision and communicate their decision by 31.08.2019, appeared to have been deliberately ignored; and, before
considering whether proceedings should be initiated against these officers under the Contempt of Court Act, for what appeared to us, prima facie, to
be willful and deliberate violation of our order, we deemed it appropriate to give these officers an opportunity to submit their explanation. In response
thereto, affidavits have been filed by all the four officers. From the facts narrated in the affidavits filed today, it does appears that, in compliance with
the order passed by us earlier, directing that the matter be enquired into, and a decision be taken before 31.08.2019, the respondents had taken action
thereupon; the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, after examining the allegations, had concluded on 08.08.2019 that the matter could not be enquired
into at their level; the matter was referred to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, and to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, vide
letters dated 08.08.2019 and 13.08.2019 respectively; the Secretary, Social Welfare, had examined the matter, and had realized that the Government
Order dated 26.02.2006, constituting a District Level Scrutiny Committee, was applicable only to State employees, whereas in the present matter the
candidate, whose caste certificate was to be scrutinised, was not a State employee; the matter was referred to the Personnel Department on
14.08.2019 which, in turn, referred the matter to the Law Department on 19.08.2019; the Law Department opined on 20.08.2019 that it was
necessary for a Committee to be constituted to comply with the order of the Court; the matter was referred to the Chief Minister on 22.08.2009 for
his approval; on 22.08.2019, a decision was taken to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary; a meeting was
directed to be convened on 28.08.2019 by the Chairman of the Committee; being unaware thereof, the Secretary, Revenue had applied for two
days’ leave; the Principal Secretary, Law had requested that his name be omitted from the Committee; therefore, the meeting scheduled to be
held on 28.08.2019 could not be held; on 04.09.2019, the Secretary, Personnel was appointed as a member in the place of the Principal Secretary,
Law; a meeting was held on 07.09.2019 wherein and, the parties were given an opportunity of being heard; and, on 09.09.2019, a decision was taken
by the Committee, a copy of which was filed along with the affidavit. While most of these details, mainly those which related to events prior to
31.08.2019, ought to have been stated in the application seeking extension of time, we cannot but admit that were also under the impression, (albeit
mistaken) that the said affidavit did not even make a mention of the next date on which the meeting was scheduled to be held.
2. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would point out, rightly, the specific averment, in the time extension application, that the next
meeting was scheduled to be held on 07.09.2019. This averment escaped our attention, resulting in our erroneously faulting the respondents for not
even indicating the next date of the meeting of the Committee. It is also evident, from the affidavits now filed before us, that, in compliance with the
order passed by this Court, a meeting was in fact held on 07.09.2019; and, pursuant thereto, a decision was taken on 09.09.2019.
3. On an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the delay in complying with the order of this Court is bonafide and for just and valid reasons.
In the light of the specific assertion in the affidavits, filed by the respondents, expressing respect for orders of Court, and that they have no intention of
disrespecting Court orders, we see no reason to proceed further against the respondents for non-compliance with the earlier directions of this Court
dated 22.07.2019.
4. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to produce the enquiry report on the genuineness, legality and
veracity of the Caste Certificate dated 01.07.2005 issued in favour of the private respondents. Since a meeting was held on 07.09.2019, and a decision
has been taken on 09.09.2019 holding the caste certificate to be valid, it is evident that the cause in this Writ Petition no longer survives and the Writ
Petition has been rendered infructous. Any grievance, which the petitioner may have with regards the order dated 09.09.2019, can only be agitated in
independent legal proceeding, and not in the present writ petition.
5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructous. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
