A.Murugan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 March, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Murugan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 3 March, 2017

Author: K.K.Sasidharan

Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, V.Parthiban

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
										
DATED: 03.03.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
			
W.P.No.5398 of 2017

A.Murugan		...Petitioner
vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
  SC/ST Vigilance Cell,
  Chennai Region,
  Tribal Welfare Department,
  II Floor, Chennai Collectorate,
  Chennai - 600 001.

2.The Director of Tribal Welfare,
  Tribal Welfare Directorate,
  Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3.State Level Scrutiny Committee,
  Rep. by Chairman and Secretary to Government,
  Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
  Secretariat, Fort St.George,
  Chennai - 600 009.

4.State of Tamil Nadu,
  Rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
  Secretariat, Fort St.George,
  Chennai - 600 009. 	 	                       ...Respondents


	Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents  to proceed with the follow up action on the enquiry held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police SC/STs Vigilance Cell - Chennai Region regarding genuineness of social status and verification of Irular (ST) Community Certificate No.020680 dated 30.06.1997 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

		For Petitioner	:  Mr.S.Sivashankar

 		For Respondents   :   Mr.A.N.Thambidurai
					    Special Govt. Pleader


O R D E R

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

The Community Certificate issued to the petitioner was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted personal enquiry and submitted a report to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to the Vigilance Cell. It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the completion of enquiry on 11 August 2015, follow up action was not taken by the State Level Scrutiny Committee under the pretext of non-receipt of report from the Vigilance Cell.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. We direct the third respondent viz., State Level Scrutiny Committee, to dispose of the scrutiny proceedings initiated to verify the community status of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (V.PARTHIBAN.,J.) 3 March 2017 svki K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

and V.PARTHIBAN,J.

(svki) To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Vigilance Cell, Chennai Region, Tribal Welfare Department, II Floor, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai - 600 001.

2.The Director of Tribal Welfare, Tribal Welfare Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3.State Level Scrutiny Committee, Rep. by Chairman and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

4.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

W.P.No.5398 of 2017

03.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court