Madras High Court
M.Varadhan vs The District Collector on 25 March, 2011
Author: D.Murugesan
Bench: D.Murugesan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.03.2011 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.No.86 of 1998 M.Varadhan .. Petitioner -vs- The District Collector Karur District, Karur, Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order No.Na.Ka.A3/16947/96 dated 26.12.96 issued by the respondent, after calling for the records from him and consequently direct the respondent to certify that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe of 'Urali' with all other consequential benefits. For Petitioners : Mrs.R.Vaigai For Respondent : Mr.G.Desingu, Spl.G.P. * * * * * O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN, J.) The petitioner is an unfortunate to approach this Court for settling the dispute as to his community certificate right from the year 1984. As we are convinced with the petition and to issue a positive direction, we refer the following facts in detail.
2.The request of the petitioner for issuance of a community certificate, viz., Urali scheduled tribe community certificate, was rejected by the Tahsildar, Kulithalai Taluk, in his order dated 17.04.1984 on the ground that Urali community was not included in the presidential notification as one of the scheduled tribe communities in the State of Tamil Nadu. That application was made as early as in the year 1984. Thereafter, a representation was made by the petitioner to the District Collector, Trichy, questioning the order of the Tahsildar. Though an enquiry was conducted, no orders were passed. Therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file W.P.No.4070 of 1986 for a direction to the respondents to issue a community certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the presidential order. That writ petition was allowed by order dated 08.08.1996. For better appreciation of the grievance, the relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
" 3. The only question for consideration is as to whether the Tahsildar is competent to decide the question as to whether the petitioners are the persons belonging to Urali Tribe and if so whether such scheduled tribe is found in Tamil Nadu?
4.It is the Collector and Collector alone, who is competent to decide the question. The Tahsildar ought to have referred the matter to the Collector for deciding that issue. As far as the report of the Sub-Collector is concerned, it has been made behind the back of the petitioners, as they had not been given any opportunity, whatsoever. Even a copy of the report, stated to have been made by the Sub-Collector, on the basis of which the Tahsildar passed the impugned order, was not furnished to them. The report of the Sub Collector and also the reasoning of the Tahsildar dated 18.8.1994 appear to be contrary to the existing facts.
5.In fact, Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Manaparai, has issued a certificate on 6.9.1982 to one Thiru M.Mohanraj, son of ThiruV.Muthuveeran, residing at Mondipatty Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, stating that he belongs to Urali Community, which is recognised by the Government as a Schedule Tribe under the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. Similarly, another certificate has been issued on 21.11.1982 by the same Deputy Tahsildar to one M.Annavi son of Thiru Malaiyandi, residing at Thathakkavanedanpatty Town, Ammanakampatty Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchy District. One more certificate on 22.12.1971 has been issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters) Manapparai to one S.Thangaraju, son of Thiru Seerangan, residing at Town Vaivamalaipalayam Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchy District. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the report of the Sub Collector that no such Tribe is found in the State of Tamil Nadu or at any rate in the District of Tiruchy.
6.At this stage, we may refer to the discussions contained in Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston, C.I.E., Superintendent, Madras Government Museum, Correspondent Stranger, Societe d' Anthropoligie de Paries, Socio correspondante, Societe Romana di Anthropologie Volume VII T to Z published in 1975 by Goomo Publication, Delhi about Urali's. At page 242 it has been discussed as follows:-
"Urali. In the Madras Census Report, 1891, the Uralis are described as "a caste of agricultural labourers found chiefly in the districts of Madura and Trichinopoly. The word Urali means a ruler of a Village. Like the Ambalakkarans, they trace their descent from and Mutturaja, and the only sub-division returned by any number is Mutracha. They also asset that they were formerly employed as soldiers. In the Wyned there is a section of Kurumbas called Urali Kurumbas, and it is not improbable that these Uralis of the Tamil country are an offshoot of the great Kurumba race". The Uralis are further summed up in the same report, as "agricultural labourers in Coimbatore. Trichinopoly and Madurai. There seems to be some connection between the Uralis and the Ambalakkarans or Muttiriyans. Muttiriyan is a sub-division of both Urali and Ambalakkaran, and both of these are found in the same districts. Perhaps the Uralis are an offshoot of the Tamil Valaiyans, which by change of occupation has transformed itself into a district caste (seem Ambalakkaran). The caste is split up into a number of sub-division, called after the name of the tract or nadu in Trichinopoly which each inhabits. To get back into the caste, an excommunicated can has to kill a sheep or goat before the elders, and mark his forehead with the blood. He then gives a feast to the assembly, and puts part of the food on the roof of his house. If the crows eat this, he is received back into the caste. (Brahmins always put out portions of the araddha offerings in the same way, and judge whether they are acceptable or not by anything if the crows eat them or not). Marriage is infant or adult. A man detected in an intrigue with an unmarried woman is final, and has to marry her, and at the wedding his waist string is tied round her neck instead of tali. The well-to-do people or the caste employ Brahmans as priests, but others content themselves with their own elders. Widows and divorced women may marry again. The dead are either burned or buried. The richer members of the caste perform araddha (memorial service for the dead). They drink alcohol, and eat fowls, mutton, pork, fish rats, etc. In social position they come below the Idaiyans, Tottiyans and Kallans. Their title is Kavandan".
For the following note on the Uralis of the Trichnopoly district, I am indebted to Mr.F.R.Hemingway. "They say that they were originally Kahatriyan living in 'Alipuram near Oudh' and left that place in search of adventure, or in consequence of disputes at home, leaving their wives behind them, and finally settled in the south, where they married serving women (Pulukkachis). They say that they belong to the Mutturaja Kuttam, a phrase they cannot explain, and protest that the Ambalakkarans, who make a similar claim, have no ground for so doing. They seem to eat with no other caste on equal terms, but will, of course, accept separate scale from Vellalans. They are split into seven nadus, which are in effect endogamous sub-divisions".
We do not consider it necessary to refer to the entire discussion contained in the said book, as it is open to the petitioners to produce the above discussions only because the Sub-Collector did not go into the matter deeply and he appear to have made a report without realising the importance of it and the effect it would have on the persons who claimed to be Uralis.
7.Thus, it is clear that there is no determination at any point of time as to whether the petitioners are Uralis and if so they are entitled to the certificates, as sought as pointed out already, he has been wrongly denied the certificate.
8.For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms:
The matter is remitted to the Collector of Tiruchirappalli District, who shall decide the question as to whether the petitioners are Uralis. In the event, it is held that the petitioners are Uralis, which is a scheduled tribe, he shall issue the certificates. Enquiry to be made after issuing notice to the petitioners, who will be entitled to adduce such evidence as they deem it necessary and they are also entitled to be represented through counsel. Petitioners shall file the necessary application with evidence before the Collector of Tiruchirapalli District on 26.8.1996 and the Collector shall decide the matter within two months from 26.8.1996. No costs."
By the above order, a finding has been rendered that in view of the fact that the Urali community has been included in the presidential notification, the petitioner's claim should be considered and he is entitled to such a certificate. On the basis of that order, the petitioner has made a representation dated 18.12.1996 to the District Collector for issuance of community certificate. In spite of the directions of the Division Bench, his request was rejected by order of the District Collector, Karur, dated 26.12.1996 stating that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Urali scheduled tribe community without any discussion as to the claim. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.The writ petition came to be admitted as early as on 21.01.1999. Till today, no counter-affidavit is filed in spite of number of adjournments. In fact, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 22.12.2005, the learned Judge directed the respondent to pass orders only in the light of the decision given by the Division Bench in W.P.No.4070 of 1986 dated 08.08.1996 and submit a report to the Court within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The operative portion of that order, which was subsequently corrected on clerical mistake by order dated 20.02.2006, reads as hereunder:-
"It is made clear that the committee shall give an independent decision regarding the Urali Community without being influenced by the terms subsects like Urali or Urali Gounder as decided by the respondent in the present case, based on the records submitted by the petitioner and in the light of the decision given by the Division Bench in W.P.No.4070 of 1986 dated 08.08.1996 and submit a report to this Court within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
4.Admittedly, the above direction has not been complied with. Thereafter, the matter was again heard by this Court and by order dated 01.11.2007, having noticed that no report was filed, a further three months time was granted for the Committee to pass orders. In spite of the above, not only no orders have been passed in terms of the order in W.P.No.4070 of 1986, but the respondent has also not filed either counter-affidavit or produced the records as directed by this Court at least on three occasions. In these circumstances, we have no other option to consider the case on merits.
5.We need not elaborately discuss the grievance of the petitioner, as the earlier Division Bench in its order dated 08.08.1996 has considered the entire scope of the grievance and found Urali community being one of the scheduled tribe communities included in the presidential notification and for that reason, the petitioner is entitled to such a certificate. In view of the earlier order of the Division Bench, the impugned order which runs contra to the directions of the Division Bench, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
6.Though the respondents have been given sufficient time by this Court as indicated above, no report or any order in terms of the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.4070 of 1986 is forthcoming. Hence, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case where the respondent should be given further opportunity to consider and pass orders and for that reason, we deem it fit that it could be brought under the general exception for issuance of a positive direction directing the respondent to issue community certificate.
7.In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 (The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi V. K.S. Jagannathan & Another) laying down the law that the High Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can grant a positive direction in a proper case to the Public Authority or Government to pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or the Public Authority in order to prevent injustice. In fact, the Apex Court has also reiterated the same principle in the subsequent judgment reported in AIR 1996 SC 2384 (Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Edl. & Charitable Trust V. State of Tamil Nadu & Others). However, that power should be exercised very cautiously and depending upon the requirement and circumstances.
8.The litigation started when the petitioner was aged about 31 years in the year 1984 and when his application was earlier rejected in the year 1986, he approached this Court questioning that order in the year 1986. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to above, there will be a direction to the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to Hindu Urali scheduled tribe community and also to grant all other consequential benefits. The direction shall be complied with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order either from the Registry or on production of the same by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
sra To The District Collector, Karur District, Karur, Tamil Nadu