Remanded

Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC1 Feb 2017WP/14817/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's claim of belonging to the Konda Reddy Scheduled Tribe community. The writ petition was directed against a State Level Scrutiny Committee order. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating adherence to fair procedure and furnishing all relevant material to the petitioner within four months.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition has been disposed of. The order dated 03.05.2013 is set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.02.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

W.P.No.14817 of 2013 Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare (CV1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee, rep by Chairman, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, III Floor, Chennai – 9. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in connection with the order passed by him in Proc.No.16395/CVIII/2009 dated 03.05.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to declare that the petitioner belongs to 'Konda Reddy' Community as per the certificate issued in his favour dated 12.08.1981.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Ms.M.Srividhya

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Shivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 03.05.2013 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee,

¶12

confirming the finding rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, declining to recognise the Writ Petitioner as belonging to 'Konda Reddy' Community, a notified Scheduled Tribe.

¶13

2.Verification of the genuineness of the claims made by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class has become an acute necessity, nay, a legal obligation to prevent miscarriage of justice. With the increased number of false claims, it has become absolutely necessary to undertake a strict scrutiny and verification of such claims.

¶14

3.Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241, the State of Tamil Nadu has constituted a District Vigilance Committee and a State Level Scrutiny Committee to verify the genuineness of the Community Certificates issued/claimed by persons, who belonged to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. To enable the aforesaid mechanism to function transparently and properly, guidelines have been framed and they were published through the orders of the State Government contained in the G.O.Ms.No.106 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV I) Department dated 15.10.2012.

¶15

4.In the instant case, we must necessarily acknowledge the fairness exhibited by Mr.P.S.Shivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has not faithfully followed the guidelines contained in the aforementioned Government Order while rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioner.

¶16

5.Adopting a fair procedure eliminates criticism that powers are exercised arbitrarily and capriciously. More importantly, a fair procedure is the hallmark of a fair principle of governance of the State. If the claim made by the Writ Petitioner that he belongs to 'Konda Reddy' Community, a community which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe, is not a fair or an acceptable one, ultimately the decision in that regard should be arrived at, after following a fair and transparent procedure. The reason for the conclusions also would help the person concerned to know as to why his claim has not been upheld.

¶17

6.In view of what has been noted supra by us, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for fresh consideration by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶18

7.We hope and trust that the State Level Scrutiny Committee will bestow a proper and careful attention this time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ around and provide every opportunity to the Writ Petitioner to

¶19

produce such material which he considers that is in his favour and supports his claim. At the same time, if any material, which is adverse to the interest of the Writ Petitioner, has also come to the notice of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, either in the form of a report submitted by the Vigilance Cell/Revenue Divisional Officer/Tahsildar, a copy of the same may also be furnished to the Writ Petitioner, so that he can effectively contradict the findings so arrived, if he has any material and the same may be resorted to.

¶20

8.We also hope that the entire exercise would be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from today.

¶21

9.With these, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
va
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare (CV1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maligai,
III Floor, Chennai – 9.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
+1cc to M/S. M. Srividhya, Advocate Sr.6331
W.P.No.14817 of 2013

¶22

NM(CO) VR(15/02/2017)

¶23

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

Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy v. State of Tamilnadu

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

The Pondicherry University, Vs C.Rizwana Begum

R. Jayapal Vs the District Collector

A.Elango Vs The Member Secretarty/

P.Shachila Rani Vs The Registrar General

V.Palanivel Vs the Regional Transport

Mehala Koneru (Minor) Vs Tamilnadu