Madras High Court
R. Lingan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(5)CTC512, (2007)1MLJ527
Author: M. Jaichandren
Bench: M. Jaichandren
ORDER M. Jaichandren, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to Roc.1825/97(A3), dated 11.2.2003, quash the same and direct the respondent to issue a community certificate to the daughter of the petitioner by name Bagyalakshmi and to his grand daughter Naveenasri that they are belonging to "Kurichchan" which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to "Kurichchan" community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. In the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1959, his community has been entered as "Kurichchan". The Tahsildar, Hosur, had issued a community certificate to the petitioner as early as 23.9.1963 certifying that he belongs to "Kurichchan" community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Even in the Service Book of the petitioner, his community has been mentioned as "Kurichchan". In the Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner on 1.6.1964 by the Headmaster, Board High School, Denkanikotta, his community has been shown as "Kurichchan".
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu in letter No. 8017/DW.III/91-3, dated 3.4.1991 had directed that the community certificates for Scheduled Tribe should be issued only by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officers after 11.11.1989. The petitioner had made a request to the respondent on 30.9.1991 for the issuance of a certificate to his daughter L.Bagyalakshmi stating that she belongs to "Kurichchan" community. The petitioner had produced a number of documents to show that he belongs to "Kurichchan" community. The respondent had conducted a village level enquiry on 10.6.1992 and recorded his finding that according to the ex-president of the respondent village and the other elderly people, the petitioner belongs to "Kurinjigar" community and that the petitioner's mother tongue was Kannada. It was also recorded that the villagers did not know the difference among "Kurichchan" "Kurinjigar" and "Kunjidigar" communities. The respondent had also stated that there was no community by name "Kurinjigar". However, the respondent had come to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to "Kunjidigar" community, which is a "Backward Class".
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons stated by the respondent in his order D.Dis.12886/91, dated 28.8.1992, rejecting the application of the petitioner was erroneous in law and the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the said order was passed. Hence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Dharmapuri, in the month of September, 1992. Since, no order was passed till February, 1993, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No. 4768 of 1993 praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to pass orders on his appeal. By an order, dated 12.3.1993, this Court had directed the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within the specified period. The District Collector, Dharmapuri, by his order, dated 14.4.1993, in Na.Ka.94897/92/F.1, rejected his appeal stating that there is no such provision for preferring an appeal against the orders of the officers, who were competent to issue the community certificate and the petitioner was directed to approach the Tahsildar, Denkanikotta, to obtain a Backward Community Certificate as per the directions of the respondent. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 17203 of 1994 and by an order, dated 3.7.2001, this Court had set aside the orders passed by the respondent, dated 28.8.1992, and the orders of the District Collector of Dharmapuri, dated 14.4.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent by a representation, dated 6.5.2002, requesting for a community certificate for his daughter L.Bagyalakshmi and his grand daughter Naveenasri as belonging to "Kurichchan" community. Since the respondent had not passed any orders on his representation, dated 6.5.2002, the petitioner had again approached this Court in W.P. No. 45581 of 2002. This Court had directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 6.5.2002, within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the respondent had passed the impugned order on 11.2.2003 in Roc.1825/97(A3), rejecting the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said order, dated 11.2.2003.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maduri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, dated 2.9.1994, the Vigilance Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu will be the competent authority to deal with the issue of community certificate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in R. Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust , wherein it has been held as follows:-
In our opinion the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purpose so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 11.2.2003 without properly considering the documents produced by the petitioner and also without making proper enquiries before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to "Kurichchan" community. It is also stated that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the decision was made by the respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Kurichchan" community. Placing reliance on an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 13.3.2000 in W.A. No. 677 of 1999 in E. Sankaran v. The Collector of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri and Anr., the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has to be enquired into afresh by granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
7. In such circumstances, the order passed by the respondent in Roc. No. 1825/97(A3), dated 11.2.2003, is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh petition to the respondent along with all the necessary documents to prove that he belongs to "Kurichchan" community and on such petition being submitted, the respondent is directed to make detailed enquiries, also by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.