Remanded

S.Munuswamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Oct 2014WP/24551/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the Tahsildar's order rejecting a community certificate application. The court permitted the petitioner to re-apply with necessary documents within eight weeks, requiring the authority to decide within twelve weeks thereafter, constituting a remand to the lower authority for a fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the rejected order; permitted petitioner to re-apply within eight weeks for the Community Certificate.

S.Munuswamy Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13-10-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶5

W.P.No.24551 of 2014

¶6

S.Munuswamy ..Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1. The District Collector, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai-600 078. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent Proceedings E5/31816/2012 dated 19.11.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to issue the Community Certificate that the petitioner belong to `Godda' community which is categorized as Schedule Caste as per G.O.Ms.No.1773, Social Welfare Department dated 23.6.1984.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devadoss For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandren Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J)

¶12

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 19.11.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issuance of a community certificate in his favour stating that he belongs to `Godda' a Scheduled Caste community. It has been stated in the impugned proceedings that, since the school records belonging to the petitioner show that the petitioner belongs

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

to `Boyadu' community, which is a Backward Class community, it would not be possible for the second respondent to issue a community certificate, as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further stated that no proper reasons had been given by the second respondent for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. No proper enquiry had been conducted by the second respondent, before the request of the petitioner had been rejected.

¶17

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that no evidence had been shown by the petitioner, either oral or documentary, to support his claim. From the records relating to the petitioner, it could be noted that the petitioner belongs to `Boyadu', which is a Backward Class community. Therefore, the second respondent had rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioner, by his impugned proceedings, dated 19.11.2012.

¶18

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that, in the given facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the second respondent, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make an appropriate application, along with the necessary documents, in the prescribed format, before the second respondent, with regard to the issuance of a community certificate, as prayed for by the petitioner herein, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such application, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

//True Copy//

csh

The District Collector, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai-600 078.

¶26

1 CC to Mr.Devadoss, Advocate SR.No. 49045

¶27

1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 48737

¶28

W.P.No.24551 of 2014 KKI (CO) PSI (10.11.2014)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Munuswamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Munuswamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Shanmugam Vs The Revenue Divisional

V.Hariharan M.a., M.Ed Vs the Director of School

R.Natarajan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

S.Kumar, Vs The District Collector

V.P.Pandurangan Vs The Revenue Divisional