Allowed

C.Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC14 Jul 2015WP/21056/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of three writ petitions seeking issuance of Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Certificates. The Court set aside impugned rejection orders, held that authorities must pass reasoned orders considering the Cultural Report, and remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry including anthropological traits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned online orders setting aside the applications were set aside; the matter was remitted to the authority for a fresh reasoned order considering the Cultural Report and relevant documents.

C.Murugan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶7

W.P.Nos.21056 to 21058 of 2015

¶8

C. Murugan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.21056 of 2015 C. Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioner in W.P.No.21057 of 2015 R. Selvaraj ... Petitioner in W.P.No.21058 of 2015 vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur, Vellore District 2. The Director of Tribal Welfare, Chennai - 600 005. ... Respondents in all W.Ps

¶9

Writ Petition in W.P.No.21056 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to decide the application of the petitioner made online (Application ID 2015/0204/04/040713) dated 26^th June 2015 for issuance of ''Kurumans'' Scheduled Tribe Certificate to him, on the basis of the Cultural Report on ''Kurumans'' sent by respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 18.02.2015 to respondent No.1 within a reasonable time.

¶10

Writ Petition in W.P.No.21057 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to decide the application of the petitioner made online (Application ID 2015/0204/04/040723) dated 26^th June 2015 for issuance of ''Kurumans'' Scheduled Tribe Certificate to him, on the basis of the Cultural Report on ''Kurumans'' sent by respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 18.02.2015 to respondent No.1 within a reasonable time.

¶11

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

¶12

Writ Petition in W.P.No.21058 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to decide the application of the petitioner made online (Application ID 2015/0204/04/040775) dated 26^th June 2015 for issuance of ''Kurumans'' Scheduled Tribe Certificate to him, on the basis of the Cultural Report on ''Kurumans'' sent by respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 18.02.2015 to respondent No.1 within a reasonable time.

¶13

For petitioner :Mr.M.Radhakrishnan in all W.Ps

¶14

For Respondents :Mr. R.Rajeswaran,Special Govt.Pleader in all W.Ps

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶17

In view of commonality of issue involved in all these writ petitions, these writ petitions are being considered and decided by this common order. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶18

2 These writ petitions are filed challenging the online orders of the first respondent, whereby and whereunder, the petitioners' applications seeking certificate that they belong to Kurumans (ST) community, were rejected.

¶19

3 The prime contention in this batch of writ petitions is that the petitioners' applications seeking certificate that they belong to Kurumans (ST) community were not considered properly and the same were rejected without assigning any reason as is evident from the impugned online information and the petitioners have not been communicated any order.

¶20

4 The authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are under an obligation to pass a reasoned order dealing with each and every document produced by the applicant, as the reasoning is the heartbeat of a conclusion.

¶21

5 The Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a Circular in Na.Ka.No.Va.Ni.5(3)/2958/2011 dated 21.01.2011 inter alia stating that in respect of the community certificates to be issued in respect of Scheduled Tribes, proper certificates are to be issued and a time

¶22

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

¶23

limit of one week is granted in cases where enquiries are to be held and 15 days time is prescribed within which time, the certificates are to be issued. Therefore, the authorities are required to adhere to the time schedule as notified by the Government.

¶24

6 Further, it is also worth mentioning that a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13.02.2014 passed in W.P. No.11977 of 2014, had indicated that the cultural report on Kurumans is required to be considered while the application of an applicant seeking issuance of community certificate is examined.

¶25

7 In such view of the matter, the impugned online orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the matter afresh on holding proper enquiry and also taking into consideration, the relevant documents and materials, including the Cultural Report of Kurumans sent by the second respondent, vide communication dated 18.02.2015. It is well settled proposition of law that while considering an application for issuance of community/social status certificate, the certificate issued in favour of relatives have greater probative value. The competent authority is required to enquire into the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes and tribes, particularly, in case of Scheduled Tribe. If, on enquiry, it is found that the parents of the applicant seeking social status/community certificate, have been granted such certificate and the same is not held as not genuine or doubtful, such certificate cannot be disregarded and that is a conclusive proof in case of children. Accordingly, the competent officer is directed to examine the issue carefully and pass a fresh reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law.

¶26

8 With the above direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of. Costs made easy.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur, Vellore District

¶31

The Director of Tribal Welfare, Chennai - 600 005.

¶32

+1 cc to Government pleader (SR. 35591) +3 cc to Mr. M. Radhakrishnan (SR.35365)

¶33

W.P. Nos.21056 to 21058
of 2015
RV (CO)
YJ 23.07.15

¶34

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

C.Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Pugazhendhi Vs S.P. Sandhiya

D.S.Narayanan, Vs The Commissioner

The Commissioner Vs M.Revathi

S.Govindaraju Vs The Govt. of Tamilnadu, rep.

M.Sarada Vs Commissioner of Corporation

R.Manoharan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu