Allowed

Minor. Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Mar 2014WP(MD)/18537/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a minor challenging the rejection of his community certificate application. The Court set aside the impugned order by the Tahsildar for not conducting a proper enquiry and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

Minor. Suresh Kumar Vs the Tahsildar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶3

Writ Petition (MD) No.18537 of 2013

¶4

Minor Suresh Kumar

¶5

through his father and natural guardian, Mariappan,

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

2.The Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5.7.2103 issued in his reference Aa/11451/2013 quash the same and direct the respondent to issue the community certificate in favour of the minor petitioner Sureshkumar that he belongs to Kulalar community the Most Backward class community.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vellaiswamy For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.)

¶15

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an endorsement made by the Tahsildar, Alangulam, returning the application of the petitioner for grant of a community certificate.

¶16

2.Heard Mr.K.Vellaiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

3.The petitioner is a minor who is represented by his father and natural guardian Mariappan. The petitioner has a sister by name Shanmugasundari. For the petitioner's sister, a community certificate was already issued by the Regional Deputy Tahsildar, Alangulam way back on 06.08.2001 to the effect that she belongs to the Hindu Kulalar community which is classified as a Most Backward Class Community. But when the petitioner made a representation, it was rejected by the impugned order solely on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, whose https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contents are also not disclosed in the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

¶19

4.A look at the impugned order would show that except the report of the Revenue Inspector, the Tahsildar, did not take anything into account. According to the petitioner, he already produced his sister's community certificate but the same was also not taken into account. Therefore, the nature of the enquiry that is obliged to be conducted by the first respondent has not been conducted.

¶20

5.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the community certificate issued to his sister and also produce other materials, if there are any. Upon the production of such material by the petitioner, the first respondent shall conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the material. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶23

\True copy\

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

2.The Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶28

+1. CC TO MR.K.VELLAISWAMY, ADVOCATE SR.NO. 13655

¶29

+1. CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 13876

¶30

Sms

¶31

SR : 14.03.2014 : 2p/5c

¶32

Writ Petition (MD) No.18537 of 2013 03.03.2014

¶33

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

Minor. Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor. Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

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

M.Ramesh, Vs the District Collector

C.Sendrayan, Vs the Tasmac Manager

The Commissioner, Vs R. Venkatramani