Madras High Court
Amarnath Being A Minor vs District Collector on 17 March, 2014
Bench: M.Jaichandren, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 17.3.2014.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P.No.17592 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
Amarnath being a Minor
rep. by mother and natural
guardian S.Usha Rani Petitioner
vs.
1. District Collector
(Revenue),
Revenue Department,
Saram, Puducherry.
2. Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Karaikal. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent with No.7877/TLK/KKL/B2/2011-12 dated 26.12.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner showing his community as Hindu Parayan which is a Scheduled Caste.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajayakumar
For Respondents : Mrs.N.Mala, Special Govt. Pleader (P)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent with No.7877/TLK/KKL/B2/2011-12 dated 26.12.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner showing his community as Hindu Parayan which is a Scheduled Caste.
2. The petitioner, being a minor boy, is represented by her mother S.Usha Rani. The said Usha Rani has filed the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. According to her, she was born and brought up at Karaikal and she belongs to Parayan Community which is declared as Scheduled Caste community by birth. She married one Thiru.Susai Marianathan, who originally belonged to Christian religion and after the marriage, converted into Hindu religion and changed his name also. It is her further case that they were residing in her parental house at Karaikal and since the relatives of her husband had not recognised their marriage, they were not allowed in their residence and there was a threat to their life, which compelled them to remain at Karaikal itself. As against all the odds, they have been residing at Karaikal in her parents house as Hindus and she never converted into Christian religion at any point of time.
3. The petitioner's mother has three children viz., Amarnath, Arunika and Asmitha and all of them were born and brought up at Karaikal at her parents house. They have been living as Hindu Parayan and their children were also brought up at her parents house as members of the above community.
4. It comes to be known that the mother of the petitioner secured an appointment as Operation Theatre Assistant at JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry which is a class IV employment by virtue of her community. Hence, they were forced to shift their residence to Jipmer Quarters in the year 2001. After shifting her residence to JIPMER Quarters, her husband, who does not stick on any particular job, had developed some problems with her and started to live separately and hence, she alone is taking care of her children.
5. The petitioner's mother approached the Revenue authorities for a community certificate for the purpose of higher education of her son viz., the petitioner which was not considered by the second respondent. After much compulsion, she was issued with the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 by which the second respondent/Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikal rejected the request for issue of community certificate stating that she was residing in Jipmer Quarters, Puducherry for the past six years and hence, it was unable to ascertain what religion she and her family members were following.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the stand taken by the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 in not acceding to the request for issue of scheduled caste community certificate to the petitioner is an illegal and arbitrary one besides the same being untenable in law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this court that the mother of the petitioner belongs to Hindu Parayan community by birth and just because she married a Christian, who also subsequently converted into Hinduism, it cannot be taken as a basis for rejecting the community certificate to her son.
8. Lastly, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner has declared herself in the application previously submitted to the second respondent that she has not converted into Christianity and further submitted that her husband converted into Hinduism and was residing in her parents house at Karaikal which ought to have been considered by the second respondent for the purpose of issuing a community certificate.
9. We have perused the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Karaikal which reveals that the second respondent, while refusing to consider the request for issue of scheduled community certificate, had, inter alia, stated that as the mother of the petitioner is residing with her family at Jipmer Quarters, Pudhucherry for the past six years, it is unable to ascertain what religion she and her family members are following and further opined that he does not know whether her request for issuance of scheduled caste certificate to her children may be considered or not.
10. At this juncture, we pertinently point out that the order of the second respondent/Tahsildar, Karaikal is liable to be set aside on the simple ground that the second respondent/Tahsildar had not conducted a full-fledged detail enquiry in regard to the issuance of Scheduled Caste Certificate sought for by the mother of the petitioner. Added further, he had only stated in the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 that the mother of the petitioner is residing with her family members at Jipmer Quarters, Pudhucherry for the past six years which reason cold not be considered as proper in the eye of law. It cannot be gainsaid that even at the time of passing a refusal order or rejection order, in an administrative action, it is the duty of the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner in a qualitative and quantitative and in a detailed manner in regard to the issuance of the Scheduled Caste certificate and simply assigning reasons that 'she is residing with her family members at Jipmer Quarters for the past six years, etc.' are not valid and legally tenable grounds to reject the request of the mother of the petitioner in regard to the issuance of the Scheduled Cast certificate to her children as opined by this court. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent bristles with legal infirmities and suffers from material irregularities in the eye of law. On this simple ground alone, without traversing upon the merits of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order of the second respondent/Tahsildar, Karaikal dated 26.12.2011 in the interest of justice. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the second respondent/Tahsildar, Karaikal dated 26.12.2011 is hereby set aside for the reasons assigned above. We hereby direct the mother of the petitioner to submit a fresh application seeking issuance of scheduled caste certificate to her children before the second respondent/Tahsildar, Karaikal alongwith necessary and supporting documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Soon after receipt of such application, the second respondent/Tahsildar shall conduct a detailed enquiry in a fair, just and dispassionate manner and pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits (especially specifying the outline of process of reasoning) in the manner known to law and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, of course, after providing due opportunity to the petitioner by adhering the principles of natural justice. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
(M.J.,J.) (M.V.,J.) 17.3.2014.
Index: Yes.
Internet: Yes.
ssk.
To
1. District Collector (Revenue), Revenue Department, Saram, Puducherry.
2. Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikal.
M.JAICHANDREN, J.
and M.VENUGOPAL, J.
Ssk.
W.P.No.17592 of 201217.3.2014.