Disposed

K. Basuvaraji v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC30 Oct 2015WP/34875/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to examine the petitioner's community certificate application within six weeks, considering the cultural report. The court cited Supreme Court guidelines regarding the mandatory timeline for such determinations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the merits within six weeks of receiving the order.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶7

W.P.No.34875 of 2015

¶8

K. Basuvaraji .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Director of Tribal Welfare,
Chennai 600 005. ..Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Schedule Tribe Community Certificates to the petitioner, his wife Suguvani and his children viz., B. Udayakumar, B. Jackichan and B. Usha on the basis of the cultural report on “Kurumans” sent by the second respondent vide his letter dated 18.02.2015 to respondent No.1 within a reasonable time.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr. M. Radhakrishnan For respondents: Mr. N. Sakthivel Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

Mr.N.Sakthivel, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner, claiming to be a member of Kurumans (ST) community, seeks a mandamus to the first respondent to consider to decide the community status of the petitioner, his wife Suguvani and his children viz., B.Udayakumar, B. Jackichan and B. Usha on the basis of the cultural report on “Kurumans” sent by the second respondent vide his letter dated 18.02.2015.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the petitioner's application dated 13.07.2015, there has been no response from the authority concerned. The second respondent had already circulated a Cultural Report on Kurumans community to all the Revenue Divisional Officers. Hence, the instant writ petition for the afore-stated relief.

¶17

A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 13.02.2014 passed in W.P. No.11977 of 2012, had indicated that the cultural report on the concerned community is required to be considered while the application of an applicant seeking issuance of community certificate is examined.

¶18

Needless to state that the enquiry has to be conducted keeping in mind, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others¹ in respect of anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc., by the caste or tribe or tribal community concerned, particularly, in case of Scheduled Tribe. It is also pertinent to state that in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Supreme Court has fixed time schedule of six months for consideration and issuance of community certificate.

¶19

In view of the foregoing, the first respondent shall examine the petitioner's case, at the earliest, keeping in mind, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and the Cultural Report on Kurumans sent by the second respondent vide his letter dated 18.02.2015 to all the Revenue Divisional Officers. The Cultural Report may not be a conclusive and final proof but the same is one of the material documents for consideration of the petitioner's application for issuance of community certificate. Thus, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Costs made easy. ra

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶24

/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Director of Tribal Welfare,
Chennai 600 005.
+1 C.C. To MR.Radhakrishnan, Advocate in SR.NO.59952
W.P.No.34875 of 2015
AD(CO)
sd : 27/11/2015

¶25

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

K. Basuvaraji v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Basuvaraji 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

Sundaramoni Venkatesan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Deivakadaksham Vs Chennai Metropolitan

G.Krishnakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Punjab National Bank Vs Mrs.P.Vasantha

K. Madhuraji Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N. Ramachandran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer