Allowed

P.Sekar v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC22 Jul 2015WP/21875/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Revenue Officer's rejection of community certificates for the petitioner's daughters, directing a fresh consideration. The judgment held that children are entitled to the same ST community status as their father if his certificate remains valid and unmodified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application was set aside; the respondent directed to consider the matter afresh within four weeks.

P.Sekar Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22/7/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶7

W.P. No.21875 of 2015

¶8

P. Sekar ...Petitioner Vs The Revenue Divisional officer Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District. ...Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in proceedings inNo.Pa.Mu/ (A2)/3387/2015 dated 13/7/2015 on the file of the respondent quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's daughters viz., 1.S.Santhalakshmi, 2. S. Santhiya and 3. S.Leela that they belong to “Kurumans (ST) Community” based upon the community certificate already issued to the petitioner and his relative.

¶10

For petitioner ... Mr.S.Doraisamy For respondent ... Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶14

The petitioner had obtained a Community Certificate on 13^th August, 2014, issued by a competent Officer i.e., the Revenue Divisional officer, Tiruvannamalai. Thereafter, he made an application for issuance of Community Certificate to his daughters, viz., S.Santhalakshmi, S. Santhiya and S.Leela, which was rejected by

¶15

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

¶16

the impugned order dated 13^th July, 2015, on the ground that the daughters belong to Hindu Gounder Community.

¶17

From a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner was issued with community certificate on 13^th August, 2014 by the respondent herein stating that he belong to Kurumans (ST) community, and as such petitioner's children are also entitled get such community certificates.

¶18

We have been repeatedly observing that a community comprises not only of the members of the family, but also the members of the same group or tribe. In the case on hand, when the respondent himself issued community certificate to the petitioner recognising his community as Kurumans (ST) community, his children are also entitled to get such community status.

¶19

The community certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner is not doubted. The other competent authority, while considering the application for the grant of similar community certificate to the children, has no competence to ignore the proper certificate issued in favour of the father of the children, unless the same is set aside or modified by the higher authority, i.e., the State Level Scrutiny Committee. If the competent authority has any doubt about the genuineness of the community certificate, the only course open to the competent authority is to refer the same to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and not to take contrary stand, without appropriate order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶20

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13^th July, 2015 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and take a decision in view of the observations made herein above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

7.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

1 cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate (SR.37397)

¶24

- 1 cc to Government pleader (SR.37165)

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The Revenue Divisional officer Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District.

¶28

W.P. No.21875 of 2015

¶29

RJ(co) cp 04.08.2015

¶30

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

P.Sekar v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sekar v. 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

S.Ramu Vs The Director of Municipal

Vnr Infrastructure Ltd, Rep by Vs The Assistant Commisisoner(Ct)

Vivek Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

R.Arumugham Vs The Commissioner

R.Nagarajan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Vanavil Arts & Science College Vs The Commissioner