Allowed

R.Ravi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Aug 2016WP/24377/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of Hindu-Bandi (SC) community certificate applications by the District Collector. The Court held the wrong authority was approached and set aside the order, directing petitioners to approach the competent authority, the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.10.2015 set aside. Petitioners directed to approach the competent authority, the Tahsildar.

R.Ravi, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶7

Writ Petition Nos.24377 and 24378 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.20863 and 20864 of 2016 ---R.Ravi ...Petitioner in WP.No.24377 of 2016 R.Ramarajan ...Petitioner in WP.No.24378 of 2016 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Erode District Vigilance Committee (3 Members) Erode District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. 3.The Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. ...Respondents in both WPs

¶8

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned orders dated 12.10.2015 passed by the first respondent Committee in proceedings Na.Ka.No.7174/2015/E.Ka and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue Hindu -Bandi (SC) Community Certificate to the petitioners' daughters (1) R.Priyadharshini and (2)R.Bhuvaneshwari (in WP No.24377/2016), and (1)Elakkiya and (2)Thenmozhi (in WP No.24378/2016) respectively.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli in both WPs

¶10

For Respondents : Mr. P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram in both WPs Special Government Pleader

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.)

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram, who accepts notice for respondents.

¶15

Both these Writ Petitions are filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the first respondent Committee and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue Hindu -Bandi (SC) Community Certificate to the petitioners' daughters.

¶16

It is averred in the Writ Petitions that the petitioners belong to Hindu-Bandi Community; however, they have not obtained any community certificate so far. It is further averred that they preferred applications dated 17.04.2015 and 20.04.2015 respectively to the first respondent requesting to issue community certificate to their daughters. On receipt of the same, the first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to appear for enquiry on 10.07.2015. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared and produced the school records of their daughters and the community certificates of their relatives. Thereafter, the first respondent passed an order dated 12.10.2015 rejecting the petitioners' request seeking community certificate for their daughters. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioners.

¶17

It is pertinent to note that as per G.O.(Ms.).No.147 Revenue [RA-3(2)] Department dated 17.03.2016, as regards the Scheduled Castes community certificate, the Issuing Authority is Tahsildar, the Appellate Authority is the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Redressal of Grievance Cell is the District Collector. In the case on hand, the petitioners, instead of approaching the competent authority viz., Tahsildar, has approached the District Collector, Erode District Vigilance Committee, for issue of community certificate, who rejected the said request on certain grounds. Now, this Court cannot take up a roving enquiry and as such, it is for the competent authority to investigate and identify a community, after adhering to all the fundamentals of enquiry, as stipulated by this court from time to time. The writ petitioners can make the request to the Tahsildar with or without the recommendation of the Revenue Inspectors/Village Administrative Officers. If it is without the reports of the Revenue Inspectors/Village Administrative

¶18

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

¶19

Officer, the Tahsildar can send the papers to either one or both of them for report.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2015. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 in both Writ Petitions are set aside. The petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority namely the Tahsildar along with necessary documents. The Tahsildar, on receipt of application, if any filed by the petitioner, shall consider the same and after following the rules and guidelines regarding issuance of community certificate, shall pass necessary orders. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nvsri
To
1.The District Collector,
Erode District Vigilance Committee (3 Members)
Erode District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
2 ccs to Mr.L.Mouli, Advocate, sr.44004 & 44005
1 cc to The Government Pleader,sr.44124
W.P.Nos.24377 and 24378 of 2016
gr co
kra 23.08.2016

¶22

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

R.Ravi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ravi, v. The District Collector

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

D.P.Chandramathy Vs State Rep. by its Secretary

C.Rajendran Vs The Corporation of Chennai

E.Govindaraj Vs The District Collector

The Management of G.T.N. Vs the Labour Court

D.Rajan Dev Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M/s.Gemini Pictures Circuit Vs State of Tamil Nadu