Kerala High Court
Rajendran R vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 13878 of 2012 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
RAJENDRAN R., AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN NADAR,
RESIDING AT NEDIYAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VANDITHADA,
VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
SRI.P.A.KUMARAN
SMT.VINEETHA B.
SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
SRI.ANISH JAIN
SMT.M.A.JINSA MOL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVSIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLIYAAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K C VINCENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
WP(C).No. 13878 of 2012 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STANDING DISABILITY
ASSESSMENT BOARD OF GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED 24/9/2010.
EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL
LEAVING CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.A10-29121/2000 DATED 18/10/200
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A.5272/04/K.DIS DATED 5/10/2004 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1/6/2010 IN WPC NO.23910/2004 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18/7/2011 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ALONGWITH COVERING LETTER NO.A.22374/11 DATED
3/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KGD III (2) 1863/2012 DATED 17/5/2012.
EXHIBIT P8. A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9. A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 4/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE
OFFICE SECRETARY OF THE VSDP, CERTIFICATE DATED 24/3/2004
ISSUED BY THE NADAR MAHAJANA SABHA.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
LSN
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.13878 Of 2012
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the denial of community certificate to him. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following:
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a physically challenged individual suffering from 100% visual disability. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Hindu Nadar community born to Sri Raghavan Nadar(Late) and Smt.Rajamma on 31.5.1968.
He was born and brought up as Hindu belonging to Nadar Community. In the SSLC Book, his religion is indicated as Hindu and caste is shown as OBC. Exhibit P2 is the relevant page of the SSLC Book and Exhibit P3 is the copy of the certificate dt.18.10.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent showing that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Nadar. Various other details have also been explained in the Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.23910/04 aggrieved by the refusal to issue a caste W.P.(C)No.13878/12 -2- certificate, which was disposed of by Exhibit P5 judgment, wherein a direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through the Tahsildar concerned. It was also directed that petitioner will be given an opportunity of hearing in the matter.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after several years, no enquiry was conducted with notice to him as directed by this Court. On getting information that an enquiry has been conducted, the petitioner applied for the report of the 4th respondent under the Right to Information Act and copy of the same has been produced as Exhibit P6.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondents are blindly relying upon a statement made by the Vicar of the CSI Church that the petitioner belongs to CSI Church. It is also stated in paragraph No.10 that no orders have been passed based on Exhibit P6. Exhibit P7 is a communication received by the petitioner from the Public Service Commission wherein he has been asked to produce the caste certificate for the post of Last Grade Servant. Again he filed an application as per Exhibit P8. W.P.(C)No.13878/12 -3-
6. The petitioner at the time of filing of the Writ Petition was aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to issue the caste certificate as well as the Creamy Layer Certificate and a declaration has been sought to the effect that the petitioner is a Hindu Nadar.
7. When the matter came up for admission on 29.6.2012, the learned Government Pleader submitted that already an enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Exhibit P5 judgment and the finding is against the petitioner. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed. In the statement it was reported that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order on 28.7.2011 with the finding that the petitioner and his family are Christians and not Hindu Nadar. Thereafter this Court passed an order on 12.7.2012 directing the respondents to communicate the said order to the petitioner.
8. Along with a memo, the learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of proceedings dated 7.7.2012 passed by the present Revenue Divisional Officer. A reading of the order will show that the predecessor in office had heard the petitioner on 16.6.2011 and had recorded in the file about his findings and W.P.(C)No.13878/12 -4- based on the same, the present Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order on 7.7.2012.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order will not be in compliance with the principles of natural justice and as no hearing was conducted by the successor in office before passing the order, any notings in the file will not grant power to the successor to pass an order in the light of the principles laid down by this Court and that of the Apex Court in various decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore sought for an opportunity to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer to reagitate the matter.
10. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the predecessor in office who heard the petitioner had recorded his findings in the file and based on which the present order has been passed.
11. The noting in the order that the petitioner was heard on 16.6.2011 is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I need not go into the controversy now, since I am of the view that the successor in office has passed the order without hearing the petitioner and therefore the petitioner can be given a fresh W.P.(C)No.13878/12 -5- opportunity for hearing. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is visually blind, he will appear through a counsel.
12. In the light of the above, the order dated 7.7.2012 No.A.13783/10/D.Dis. produced along with the memo dated 11.7.2012, is set aside and in terms of the direction issued in Exhibit P5 judgment, fresh proceedings will be initiated and the petitioner will be heard afresh through a counsel and appropriate orders will be passed expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn