Allowed

Sathi T v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC18 Nov 2015WP(C)/27696/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition where the Tahsildar denied a caste certificate for the petitioner's son without a proper inquiry. The order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to refer the matter to an expert agency under Section 9 of the Act and decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P10 set aside and 1st respondent directed to refer matter to expert agency under Section 9 of the Act and take decision within six months.

Sathi T Vs the Tahsildar — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/27TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).NO. 27696 OF 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SATHI T, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH K.R., KALATHIKKATTIL, CHERUKOL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 650

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE TAHSILDAR, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT.

¶12

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUKOL, PIN-689650, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

3. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.THOMAS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOZHENCHERRY, PIN-689650, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. P.K. SANTHAMMA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).NO. 27696 OF 2012 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:-	TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON SANDEEP
EXT.P2:-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 18/6/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3:-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD 11/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PARAVAN SERVICE SOCIETY, ARANMULA.
EXT.P4:-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 18/7/2002 IN OP NO 19881/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT,
EXT.P5:-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD 11/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:-	TRUE COPY OF GIFT DEED OF THE YEAR 1091(ME)OF PETITIONER'S HUSBAND'S GRAND FATHER,
EXT.P7:-	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD 1/9/2007 OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
EXT.P8:-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/10/2012 IN WPC NO 21937/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT,
EXT.P9:-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 17/10/2012 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P10:-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 30/10/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DST

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.27696 of 2012

¶26

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2015

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that 1^st and 2^nd respondents, without conducting any proper enquiry, refused to issue Caste Certificate showing that her son 'Sandeep S' belongs to Hindu Paravan, for the purpose of producing the same before the 3^rd respondent, for educational purposes.

¶29

The petitioner and her family originally belongs to 'Hindu Paravan' Caste, which is a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner's son passed S.S.L.C. and is now studying for Higher Secondary in the 3^rd respondent's school. Exts.P1 and P2 show that Caste of her son is Hindu Paravan. But, when the petitioner applied for Caste certificate for her son, the 2^nd respondent refused to accept the same saying that petitioner's husband's

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 27696 of 2012

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

Caste name is 'Chakkamar', which would come only under Other Eligibility Community (OEC). Aggrieved by the non-issuance of the certificate, the petitioner approached this Court, seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to accept the application and issue a Caste Certificate, as required. But, that Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide Ext.P8 judgment, on a misrepresentation by respondents 1 and 3 that Caste Certificate has already been issued as required. But, in fact, the Caste Certificate has not been received so far and the same is evidenced by Ext.P10. The 1^st respondent, without making any enquiry, as provided under Section 9 of the Kerala Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Regulation and Issue of Community Certificate Act, 199,6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed Ext.P10 order denying the Caste Certificate. In fact, no enquiry had been conducted before passing

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 27696 of 2012

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

Ext.P10.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

¶37

Going by Ext.P10 order, it is seen that even though, the petitioner's son's Caste is shown as 'Hindu Paravan' in his S.S.L.C. Book, his father's School Certificate shows that he belongs to 'Hindu Chakkamar' (OEC) and on that reason the Community Certificate has been denied. The 1^st respondent should have borne in mind that the Act was promulgated to redress the grievance of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste in the matter of obtaining Caste Certificate and specific provisions are provided for making enquiry, by expert agency. But, the 1^st respondent has not resorted to expert opinion as provided under Section 9 of the Act.

¶38

In the above view, Ext.P10 will stand set aside

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 27696 of 2012

¶40

-: 4 :-

¶41

and the 1^st respondent is directed to refer the matter to expert agency as provided under Section 9 of the Act and take a decision, after getting a report from the expert agency, at any rate, within a period of six months from today.

¶42

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

Sathi T v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathi T v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.Riji Wilson Vs the State of Kerala

Benny Vs the District Collector

Baby Prabha Vs District Collector

Vincent David Vs the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives

Asokan Vs the Director General Archeclogical Survey of India

Ambattu Hamza Haji Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer