Remanded

S.Dakshinamoorthy v. The Revenue Divsional

Madras HC16 Oct 2014WP/27543/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a community certificate application. The petitioner sought certificates for his children as Kattunayakan (ST), asserting prior family certificates. The court held the rejection violated natural justice, set aside the order, and directed a fresh enquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee within two weeks. The matter was remanded f

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order of rejection and directed the first respondent to place the matter before the second respondent for a fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petiti

S.Dakshinamoorthy Vs The Revenue Divsional — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16-10-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.No.27543 of 2014

¶6

S.Dakshinamoorthy .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶7

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 relating to the order of rejection passed in proceedings in Na.Ka.A5/1490/2013 dated 25.8.2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner's children D.Sugasini and D.Sutharsini that they belong to “Kattunayakan (ST) community” based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 17.5.2006, 12.3.2013 and the community certificate already issued to his family members.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner has stated that he belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner has further stated that his brothers and his sister had obtained community certificates from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, during the year 1991, stating that they belong to Kattunayakan community. While so, the petitioner had preferred an application to the first respondent, on 16.5.2005, requesting for the issuance of community certificates to his children, namely, D.Sugasini and D.Sutharsini. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 25.8.2014, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, without conducting a proper enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and as the petitioner had not furnished sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner. Proper reasons have been given by the first respondent for rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. 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 passing appropriate orders.

¶15

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 first respondent, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to place the matter before 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 first 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 third respondent, in his impugned order, dated 25.8.2014, 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

¶16

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

¶17

directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
csh
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
2. The Chairman,
The State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
1 cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy ,Advocate, SR.No.49719
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No49732
W.P.No.27543 of 2014
ug(Co)
pmk.11.11.2014

¶19

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

S.Dakshinamoorthy v. The Revenue Divsional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Dakshinamoorthy v. The Revenue Divsional

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.P.Pandurangan Vs The Revenue Divisional

S.Kumar, Vs The District Collector

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

J.Babu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Murugan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

The Director General Vs M.P.Rao