Disposed

E.Madhesh v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC21 Jul 2015WP/21745/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent to consider and decide on the petitioner's application for a Kurichchan (ST) community certificate for his daughter within four weeks, emphasizing that existing certificates for close relatives establish eligibility unless set aside by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider and decide the application within four weeks.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶7

W.P. No.21745 of 2015

¶8

E. Madesh Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri

¶10

Dharmapuri District Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's daughter M. Shalini that she belongs to Kurichchan (ST) community as per the petitioner's application dated 12.11.2014 based upon the community certificate already issued to him and his blood relatives.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr. S. Doraisamy

¶13

For respondent : Mr. R. Rajeswaran

¶14

Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Mr. R. Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶17

2 This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue Kurichchan (ST) community certificate to the petitioner's daughter M. Shalini based on the petitioner's application dated 12.11.2014.

¶18

3 The petitioner, claiming that he belongs to Kurichchan (ST) community, has made an application on 12.11.2014 to the respondent seeking issuance of such community certificate to his daughter viz., M. Shalini. Since no orders have been passed on the said application, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition seeking the aforestated relief.

¶19

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

¶20

4 From a perusal of the petitioner's application dated 12.11.2014, it is manifest that in support of his claim that he belongs to Kurichchan (ST) community, he has annexed therewith, copies of his community certificate, transfer certificate issued by school, community certificate of his brother's daughter and transfer certificate of his daughter issued by the school.

¶21

5 By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his application and issue community certificate accordingly. We have been repeatedly observing that a community comprises not only the members of the family, but also the members of the same group or tribe. In the case on hand, when the petitioner and his brother's daughter have been issued with community certificate to the effect that they belong to Kurichchan (ST) community, the petitioner's daughter is also entitled to get such community status and we are at a loss to understand as to why the petitioner's application has been kept pending without any orders being passed.

¶22

6 Needless to state that if any doubt crops up in the mind of the competent authority qua the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner while considering his application seeking community certificate for his daughter, the only course open to the competent authority is to refer the same to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and not to take a contrary stand by dis-crediting the community certificate issued to the petitioner, without appropriate order being passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. In other words, if the competent authority has any doubt about the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner, he has no competence to ignore the same, unless the same is set aside or modified by the higher authority, i.e., the State Level Scrutiny Committee and he can only refer the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶23

7 For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 12.11.2014 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Asst.Registrar

¶25

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Dharmapuri District

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate sr.no.37078

¶30

+1cc to Government pleader sr.no.37043

¶31

W.P.No.21745 of 2015

¶32

svi[co] srg 03.08.2015

¶33

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

E.Madhesh v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Madhesh 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

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs P. Thangaraj

C.Sridharan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

V.Kannan Vs Presiding Officer

P.v.Rajan, Vs Housing and Urban Development

M/S.Prasanth Fertility Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

M/s.Milka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu