Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) A learned Judge of this Court had the occasion to hear three writ petitions analogously. Two of such writ petitions were at the instance of the appellant (hereafter Biswajit) while the other was at the instance of the sixth respondent (hereafter Basudeb). By a common judgment and order dated December 21, 2009, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions of Biswajit and allowed Basudeb's writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by such dismissal, Biswajit has carried these intra-Court appeals before us.
(2.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the first to the fourth respondents (hereafter the official respondents) raised a preliminary objection. According to him, in the absence of any appeal having been presented by Biswajit against the judgment and order of the learned Judge allowing Basudeb's writ petition, it has attained finality and no effective relief could be granted to Biswajit if we are minded to reverse the orders of dismissal. We took note of such preliminary objection; however, having regard to the fact that the appeals had been pending before this Court for the last nine years, we proceeded further to ascertain the points in issue. The parties were, accordingly, heard and we have no hesitation that without answering the preliminary objection of Mr. Dutta, the appeals can be decided on merits. These appeals shall, therefore, be governed by this common judgment and order.
(3.) The question that arose for decision before the learned Judge was whether the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur, Murshidabad, (hereafter the SDO) having issued a scheduled caste certificate in favour of Biswajit in 1986 was justified in cancelling the same invoking the provisions of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 (hereafter the 1994 Act).;