Remanded

R.Shanmugam v. The Revenue Divisional

Madras HC10 Oct 2014WP/26942/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Revenue Divisional Officer's order rejecting the petitioner's application for community certification. The matter was remanded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for a fresh enquiry conducted within eight weeks after receiving relevant records.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim was set aside. The first respondent was directed to place the matter before the second respondent for a fresh enquiry within two weeks. The second r

R.Shanmugam Vs The Revenue Divisional — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10-10-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.No.26942 of 2014

¶6

R.Shanmugam .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai.

¶7

2 The State Level Scrutiny Committee, rep. By its Chairman, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. .. 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 to the order rejection in proceedings No.A2.4001/2013 dated 11.4.2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioners children (1) S.Manikandan, (2) S.Vignesh and (3) S.Sridevi that they belong to Kattunayakan (ST) community.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Muthukumar Government Advocate

¶10

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kattunayakan community. He had preferred an application to the first respondent, on 22.1.2012, for the issuance of community certificates to his

¶11

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

¶12

children, namely, (1) Manikandan, (2) Vignesh and (3) Sridevi, stating they belong to Kattunayakan Community. As the community certificates were not issued in favour of the children, in spite of his repeated requests, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, in W.P.No.34140 of 2012.

¶13

The learned counsel had further stated that, by an order, dated 2.1.2013, this court had directed the first respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the completion of the enquiry. It has been further stated that the first respondent had completed the enquiry, on 18.11.2013. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed an order, on 11.4.2014, rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that he does not belong to Kattunayakan community. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition stating that the first respondent is the only authority empowered to conduct an enquiry, in respect of the issuance of the community certificates. He has no power to sub-delegate the matter to any other authority for conducting an enquiry or for passing orders, with regard to the request of the petitioner for the issuance of the community certificates.

¶14

It has also been stated that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner before his request has been rejected, especially, in view of the fact that the said rejection is based on the report of the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai and Chengam. It has been stated that the first respondent, who is a Revenue Divisional Officer, is not well-versed in matters relating to the community of the petitioner, which is a tribal community. Further, the finding that the authority concerned could take into account only those community certificates, which have been issued to the relatives of the petitioner on the father's side, may not be appropriate. There is no provision in law stating that the certificates issued to the relatives of the petitioner on his mother's side, should not be considered. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is liable to be set aside, as it is devoid of merits.

¶15

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has not shown sufficient evidence in support of his claims. He cannot rely on the certificates issued in favour of his relatives, especially, if they are from the mother's side. Even otherwise, it is for the petitioner to prove his claims, independently, with sufficient evidence. As he has failed to so, the first respondent had rejected his claims.

¶16

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent may be set aside and the matter may be directed to be placed before the second respondent, for

¶17

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

¶18

passing appropriate orders.

¶19

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 set aside the order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to place the matter before the second respondent, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for considering the claims made by the petitioner, afresh, by causing an enquiry. On receipt of the application and the relevant records relating to the issuance of the community certificate, the second respondent, namely, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, shall cause an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by the observations made by the first respondent, in his impugned order, dated 11.4.2014, by following the procedures established by law and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Asst. Registrar( CS.IV ) Dt.05/11/2014. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. csh To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Chairman, The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. +1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy,Advocate SR.No.48455 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 48337 W.P.No.26942 of 2014 jsv[co] gp/5.11

¶21

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

R.Shanmugam v. The Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Shanmugam v. The Revenue Divisional

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

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

R.Natarajan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Ganesh Vs a.Periyanayagi

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

S.Munuswamy Vs The District Collector

S.Kumar, Vs The District Collector