Madras High Court
Mrs. Logasundari vs The District Collector And Ors. on 4 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)1MLJ43
ORDER E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein vide Na. Ka. Np. 8/134721/92, dated 21.7.1997 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Hindu Kammara Community--a scheduled tribe, that the petitioner had successfully completed her Engineering Course, that on certain anonymous petition, the first respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry with respect to her social status, that the third respondent after holding enquiry, submitted a report on 30.5.1996 sustaining the claim of the petitioner, that without proceedings further based on the report of the third respondent submitted on 30.5.1996 the first respondent directed the second respondent once again to conduct a secret enquiry at P. Chettiapatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk by his proceedings dated 12.2.1997, and that the second respondent had conducted an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent had submitted a report on 16.7.1997.
3. The petitioner states that in the report dated 16.7.1997, the second respondent had reported that neither at P. Chettiapatti Village nor in that locality, Hindu Kammara community people are residing, that on 21.7.1997, a show cause notice has been issued directing the petitioner herein to submit explanation and that the first respondent while communicating a xerox copy of the report dated 16.7.1997 had called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken based on the report of the second respondent dated 16.7.1997. At this stage, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The present writ petition is premature as only a show cause notice has been issued by the first respondent while enclosing a copy of the report of the second respondent dated 16.7.1997.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner being that only the adverse report submitted by the second respondent has been taken into consideration, while the report of the third respondent which is in favour of the petitioner and is available with the first respondent had not been taken into consideration. It is fur-ther contended that the second respondent had conducted an enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and that the entire report of the second respondent has to be rejected and it cannot be relied upon as there has been a total violation of principles of natu-ral justice in collecting the materials of evidence.
6. It is well open to the petitioner to raise her objections with respect to the report submitted by the second respondent, various Division Benches of this Court have pointed out the minimum requirement to be followed in conducting an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Tahsildar with respect to the social status. If there is a violation of minimum requirements and principles of challenge the final order that may be passed by the first respondent.
7. The first respondent, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is having two reports: one by the third respondent, which support the petitioner's claim and the other by the second respondent, which is against the petitioner's claim. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the report of the second respondent alone is being taken into consideration and relied upon while that of the third respondent had been ignored without even being referred to. It is not known on what circumstances the first respondent had directed the second respondent to submit a fresh report. However, when a report submitted by the third respondent is available and even assuming that the said two report support the claim of the petitioner, it is well open to the first respondent to dissent from the said report stating valid reasons, provided an opportunity is given to the petitioner. It is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner before dissenting with the report of the third respondent. If the first respondent ignores the report of the third respondent, it would vitiate the proceedings of the first respondent.
8. It is needless to point out that the first respondent should give an opportunity to the petitioner, if he decides to dissent from the report of the third respondent and also should communicate the reasons as well as materials based on which the first respondent proposes to dissent from the report of the third respondent. It is also needless to point out that the materials that have been collected behind the back of the petitioner cannot be used against the petitioner as has been emphasised by this Court from time to time.
9. In the circumstances, while making it clear that it is open to the petitioner to state all the objections that may be open to him and also to take part in the enquiry before the first respondent and to point out irregularities as well as illegalities. It is also open to the petitioner to challenge the final order that may be passed by the first respondent. The first respondent shall take into consideration the above legal position, afford an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter pass orders.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition is dis-missed. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 21443 of 1997 is also dismissed.