Disposed

Singamuthu, v. the District Collector and

Madras HC15 Apr 2016WP(MD)/18510/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking community certificates for the petitioner's sons. The court noted a discrepancy regarding the community's denotified status but directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and submitted materials regarding the Community Certificate within two months from the receipt of the order.

Singamuthu, Vs the District Collector and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.18510 of 2014

¶6

Singamuthu ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector and the Chariman, District Level Vigilance Committee, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Illupur Post & Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ..Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to issue the Community Certificate to the petitioner's sons Arulpandian and Marimuthu at once.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(The order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

2.This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent, Tahsildar, to issue Community Certificates to the petitioner's sons one Arulpandian and Marimuthu.

¶16

3.The petitioner relied upon the certificate issued to the petitioner's wife stating that she belongs to 'Hindu Kuravan Community' and the petitioner has also relied upon the transfer certificate issued to the petitioner's sons stating that they belong to 'Hindu Kuravan Community'.

¶17

4.The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Kuravan', which has been indicated as Item No.30 in the list of denotified communities.

¶18

5.Reference made by the respondents to the denotified community list issued by the Government must be a mistake, as we find that the Community 'Hindu Kuravan' comes under Serial No.36 of the Constitution (Schedule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Caste) Order, 1950, regarding State of Tamil Nadu.

¶19

¶20

6.Considering the nature of the relief, we feel that Mandamus cannot

¶21

be issued, however, we are inclined to give a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.09.2015, in accordance with law and on the basis of the materials submitted by the petitioner along with Government Orders issued from time to time, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to place relevant documents for considering his representation.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector and the Chariman, District Level Vigilance Committee, Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

¶27

2.The Tahsildar, Illupur Post & Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶28

+1cc to M/s.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate in SR.21642

¶29

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, in SR.21410

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.18510 of 2014 15.04.2016

¶31

rj2

¶32

PBK/AAL-MPA 04/05/2016 ::2P-5C::

¶33

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

Singamuthu, v. the District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singamuthu, v. the District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent

The State of Tamilnadu Vs A.K. Shimila

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Palaniappan

The Secretary to School Vs H.Shahul Hameed

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Lillis Mary