Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing D.Ruthiran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 1 July, 2015

P.Govindarasu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 22 April, 2016

7. We have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the respondent as well as the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions. Even though the applicants in all the four writ petitions produced the community certificates issued in favour of their parent and sisters, the respondents did not consider the certificates, but, rejected the applications on the only ground that they all belong to Kurumbar (MBC) community and do not belong to Kurumans (ST). This Court in a number of cases repeatedly held that once the parents of the applicants were issued with community certificates, without any further verification, the children are also entitled to get the said community certificates. The authorities cannot doubt the certificate issued in favour of the parents by another competent authority unless it is set aside or modified by the higher authority viz., the State Level Scrutiny Committee. A Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 in which one of us (SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.) is a member, (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) has held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - V Bharathidasan - Full Document

M.Ulagappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 July, 2016

(L.Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly) reported in AIR 1971 SC 33, Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26047 of 2008 (U.Sangeetha v. The Assistant Collector, Thirupathur, Vellore District and others), W.P.No.34354 of 2007 (U.Surendra Kumar v. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore) and W.P.No.35025 of 2007 (C.Ulagaraju v. The District Level Vigilance Committee, Collector's Office, Vellore District, Vellore-9), W.P.No.3159 of 2015 (M.Kumaresan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri), W.P.No.9512/2015 (L.Pushparaj v. The Revenue Divisional officer, Dharmapuri), W.P.No.14434 of 2015 (V.Ravi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District), W.P.Nos.17231, 17232, 17495 and 17496 of 2015 (P.Govindarasu and another v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District) [reported in (2016) 3 CTC 119], W.P.No.19251 of 2016 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District), W.P.No.10760 of 2016 (K.Maruthan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District), Order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P (MD).No.13774 of 2009 (P.Nagarajan v. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai and another).
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

N.Rajagopal vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 September, 2023

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government introduced the online application for issuance of community certificate vide G.O.MsNo.524 dated 14.10.2010 and therefore, the petitioner applied online for issuance of community certificate for his children. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent, while rejecting the community certificate ought to have conducted an enquiry and given the petitioner an opportunity to produce the documents and establish his claim for issuance of community certificate for his children. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent erred in rejecting the application overlooking the certificate issued to his brother's children. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Sumit Anand 2005(12) SCC 248 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26186 of 2023 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) in support of his contention that the respondent ought to have issued the community certificate to his children on the basis of the community certificate issued to his brother 's children.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

S.Veerabathiran … vs The Sub Collector on 24 August, 2023

9.Inspite of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's application on a flimsy and untenable grounds. It is pertinent to note here that in the case of D.Ruthiran Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, this Court categorically held that the children derive the community of their parents and that if the parents were granted community certificate, without any further verification, the children were entitled to the same. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner's close relative was also issued with the Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate, which was verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

T.K.Kariyappan vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis on 25 September, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the respondent has not taken into consideration, the community certificate issued to the 1 st petitioner and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23397 of 2019 dated 19.10.2022. Learned counsel also relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) wherein it was held that a community https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/8 W.P.No.28156 of 2023 comprises of the members of the family and also members of the same group or tribe, caste, the children derive their community from their parents. If the parents were granted community certificate, without any further verification, their children are entitled to the said certificate.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

S.Engobar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 September, 2023

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government introduced the online application for issuance of community certificate vide G.O.MsNo.524 dated 14.10.2010 and therefore, the petitioner applied online for issuance of community certificate. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent, while rejecting the community certificate ought to have conducted an enquiry and given the petitioner an opportunity to produce the documents and establish his claim for issuance of community certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent erred in rejecting the application overlooking the certificate issued to his close relatives viz., father's brother's grandchildren and his mother's own sister Mrs.Senji's children. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Sumit Anand 2005(12) SCC 248 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/16 W.P.No.27067 of 2023 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) in support of his contention that the respondent ought to have issued the community certificate to him on the basis of the community certificates issued to his father's brothers grandchildren and his mother's own sister Mrs.Senji's children.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

N.Rajagopal vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 September, 2023

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government had issued a Manual laying down the procedure for issuance of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Certificates. As per the procedure laid down by the Government, the Application for issuance of community certificate could be made in two ways. One, the Traditional/ Manual method and the other Online Method/ through Web based services (vide G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 14.10.2010). Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the petitioner had submitted his application online, the respondent rejected the same after following the procedures contemplated for consideration of the certificates made Online. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent having followed the procedure strictly, the rejection of the petitioner's application could not be faulted with. Learned Additional Government Pleader in any event, submitted that pending writ petition, on 11.09.2023, the Revenue 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26186 of 2023 Divisional Officer has recommended for issuance of community certificate to the petitioner and his children by directing the the petitioner to apply online.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

S.Engobar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 September, 2023

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government introduced the online application for issuance of community certificate vide G.O.MsNo.524 dated 14.10.2010 and therefore, the petitioner applied online for issuance of community certificate. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent, while rejecting the community certificate ought to have conducted an enquiry and given the petitioner an opportunity to produce the documents and establish his claim for issuance of community certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent erred in rejecting the application overlooking the certificate issued to his close relatives viz., father's brother's grandchildren and his mother's own sister Mrs.Senji's children. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Sumit Anand 2005(12) SCC 248 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/16 W.P.No.27067 of 2023 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) in support of his contention that the respondent ought to have issued the community certificate to him on the basis of the community certificates issued to his father's brothers grandchildren and his mother's own sister Mrs.Senji's children.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

T.K.Kariyappan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 September, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the respondent has not taken into consideration, the community certificate issued to the 1st petitioner and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23397 of 2019 dated 19.10.2022. Learned counsel also relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/8 W.P.No.28156 of 2023 Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) wherein it was held that a community comprises of the members of the family and also members of the same group or tribe, caste, the children derive their community from their parents. If the parents were granted community certificate, without any further verification, their children are entitled to the said certificate.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document

J.M.Suresh Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 September, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the respondent has not taken into consideration, the Kurichchan (ST) community certificate issued to the petitioner's mother's own brother M.Mathuraju and his children namely M.Mothiswaran and M.Arul Prasad and mother's own brother's son namely D.Jaiganesh. Learned counsel also relied on the order passed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/6 W.P.No.28157 of 2023 Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 (D.Ruthiran v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) wherein it was held that a community comprises of the members of the family and also members of the same group or tribe, caste, the children derive their community from their parents. If the parents were granted community certificate, without any further verification, their children are entitled to the said certificate.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J N Banu - Full Document
1   2 Next