Remanded

R.Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC16 Oct 2014WP/27574/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of an application for a community certificate for the petitioner's daughters. The court set aside the rejection order and directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted mandatorily with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed. Order of rejection quashed. Mandate for a fresh enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer placing the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee for a fair hearing.

R.Murugan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — 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.27574 of 2014

¶6

R.Murugan .. Petitioner.

¶7

Versus 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. 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 relating to the order of rejection passed in proceedings in Na.Ka.A5/770/2010 dated 18.8.2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner's daughters viz. M.Rajeswari and M.Suganya that they belong to “Kattunayakan (ST) community” based upon the community certificate already issued to petitioner and his family members.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J)

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner has stated that he belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. He had obtained the

¶12

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

¶13

community certificate from the first respondent, on 13.11.1997, stating that he belongs to Kattunayakan community. The said certificate had been issued to the petitioner after a proper enquiry had been conducted and the said certificate had not been cancelled, till date. The petitioner's brother and his sister had also obtained a community certificate from the first respondent, on 16.3.1998, stating that they belong to Kattunayakan community. While so, the petitioner had submitted an application to the first respondent, on 5.3.2010, requesting him to issue a community certificate to his children, namely, M.Rajeswari and M.Suganya, stating that they belong to Kattunayakan community. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 18.8.2014, 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 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 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 18.8.2014, 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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
csh
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
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.49218
W.P.No.27574 of 2014
ssk(Co)
pmk.17.11.2014

¶20

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

R.Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

V.P.Pandurangan Vs The Revenue Divisional

S.Kumar, Vs The District Collector

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

S.Dakshinamoorthy Vs The Revenue Divsional

J.Babu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

The Director General Vs M.P.Rao