Allowed

Maya O.N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2011WP(C)/15562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's Scheduled Caste certificate due to a prior conversion to Christianity. The court allowed her to get her reconversion to the Hindu community published in the Gazette and directed the authorities to issue a fresh certificate upon receipt of the authenticated document. It also directed the first respondent to expedite publication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to publish reconversion in the Gazette; Third Respondent to issue fresh certificate; First Respondent to expedite official Gazette publication.

Maya O.N Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 15562 of 2011(U)

¶6

------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER : -

¶8

----------------------

¶9

MAYA O.N, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN, NJETTAMPLACKAL (OOTTUPARUKUNNEL), NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANCHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATIFF

¶11

RESPONDENTS : -

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULE CASTE/SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

2. CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF SCHEDULE CASTE/SCHEDULE TRIBE CLAIM AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULE CASTE/ SCHEDULE TRIBE DEVELOPMENT (G) DEPARTMENT,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

3. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY 686 101

¶18

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SANTHAMMA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 15562 of 2011(U)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT P1 :	COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT P2 :	COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 21468/G2/2000/SCST DD DATED 26.04.2001 2^ndRESPONDENT.
EXT P3 :	COPY OF THE REPORT NO. V.89/96 DATED 24.10.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS TO THE 2^ndRESPONDENT.
EXT P4 :	COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 18.05.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT P5 :	COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT P6 :	COPY OF THE SUDHI CERTIFICATE NO. CC-2-4367/99 DATED 15.09.1999 ISSUDED BY THE AKHILA BHARATHA SEVA SANGHAM.
EXT P7 :	COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 1^stAUGUST 2000.
EXT P8 :	COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 21468/G2/00/SCSTDD DATED 06.04.2011 PASSED BY THE 2^ndRESPONDENT.
EXT P9 :	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.05.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM VILLAGE.
EXT P10 :	COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.106 DATED 05.04.2009.
EXT P11 :	COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. 105 DATED 05.04.2009.
EXT P12 :	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2011.
EXT P13 :	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2011.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶29

....................................................... W.P.(C).15562/2011

¶30

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner submits that she belongs to scheduled caste community of Hindu Sambavar. Petitioner married to one Sajan who, according to her, was originally a Hindu Sambavar but got converted to Christianity. Therefore, marriage took place in a Church. Subsequently, when the petitioner applied for caste certificate, that became the subject matter of an enquiry which led to Ext.P8 proceedings of the scrutiny committee, where the Scrutiny Committee held thus:-

¶33

“But in the year 1996 she embraced Christianity and married Sri.Sajan, Njettamplackal House, Nedumkunnam, Punnavely belonging to the Christian Community of Sambava origin. Their marriage was solemnized as per Christian rites at the Mulayammel R.C. Church, Pathaippara on 13.5.96. She also treated her name as Mariyamma Merin. Thus she and her family can be treated as members of Christian Community only from 1996 onwards. The enquiry report and her written submission before the Vigilance officer, KIRTADS reveal that there was no valid reconversion by her to Hindu Sambavar community. In the circumstances, the committee rejects the Scheduled Caste Sambavar claim of

¶34

W.P.(C).15562/11

¶35

¶36

Smt.O.N.Maya and declare that she and her family belong to Christian community of Sambavar origin.”

¶37

As a result of Ext.P8, her application for caste certificate was

¶38

rejected and it is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.

¶39

Though the case of the petitioner is that she also got reconverted to Hindu Sambavar Community, fact remains that such conversion is not yet notified in the Gazette. If that be so, at this stage, respondents cannot be faulted for the view they have taken. In view of this position, petitioner submits that she is willing to publish her reconversion in the Gazette and seeks a direction to the third respondent to issue a community certificate afresh.

¶40

Having considered the submissions made by both sides, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to get her reconversion to the scheduled caste community of Hind Sambavar, published in the Gazette and on that basis, make an application to the third respondent. It is directed that if such an application is received by the third respondent, he shall consider the claim of the petitioner untrammelled by Ext.P8 and pass fresh orders in the matter.

¶41

W.P.(C).15562/11

¶42

¶43

At this stage, petitioner submits that once the third respondent issues a certificate of reconversion, unless a direction is issued to the first respondent, there will be delay in the publication in the official Gazette. Taking note of this grievance, I direct that if the Tahsildar issues a certificate as submitted by the petitioner, on its receipt, the first respondent shall expeditiously get the same published in the official Gazette.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC Judge

¶45

mrcs

¶46

/true copy/

¶47

P.A. To Judge

Maya O.N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya O.N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Purushothaman Vs Tomin.J.Thachenkary

K.Manjunatha Kamath Vs K.P.Pappy

P.Thulasidas Vs Niveditha.P.Haran and Others

Kerala Institute Co-Operative Management Vs Mr.K.Shreekrishnakumar

Manojkumar.N.R and Another Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer & Others

A.Abdul Kharim Vs State of Kerala and Others