Partly allowed

R.Mohana Ranga Raju v. The Chairman

Madras HC20 Apr 2017WP/35614/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment set aside the State Level Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting a petitioner's Scheduled Tribe status because the committee relied on documents not furnished to him. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, mandating that all documents be shared with the petitioner and that any witnesses be cross-examined in his presence, concluding within four months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19 October 2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration with directions to follow natural justice.

R.Mohana Ranga Raju Vs The Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

¶5

W.P. No.35614 of 2015

¶6

R.Mohana Ranga Raju ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Chairman. State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶8

The Chief Superintendent of Jails, Jail Department, Kalapet, Puducherry. ...Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its proceedings No. 4864/CV-4(2)/2014-8 dated 19.10.2015 and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. V.Vijayshankar For Respondent 1 : Mr. K.Venkatramani Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Kumar Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶11

For Respondent 2 : Mr. R.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶14

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19 October 2015 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee declaring that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kondareddy Community and as such, the Certificate obtained by him on 14 September 1978 is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ genuine.

¶15

The petitioner obtained a Community Certificate from the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 14 September 1978. The petitioner produced the said certificate before the Jail Department, Puducherry and secured employment against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam initiated proceedings to test the validity of the Community Certificate. The petitioner challenged the action taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer before this Court in W.P.No.26135 of 2003. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to initiate scrutiny proceedings by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee commenced the proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that discreet enquiry was conducted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee behind his back and none of the documents relied on by the Committee to arrive at a finding that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community, were furnished to him.

¶16

The State Level Scrutiny Committee in its order dated 19 October 2015 relied on certain materials, which according to the petitioner were not furnished to him. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the order primarily on the ground that an attempt was taken to hold enquiry behind his back and materials collected during such enquiry were relied on to reject his claim for community status.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the first respondent. We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Pondy) for the second respondent.

¶18

There is no dispute that the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued a Community Certificate to the petitioner on 14 September 1978. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner secured employment in Puducherry on the strength of the Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate.

¶19

The Community Certificate issued to the petitioner was subjected to verification by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by the Committee negativing the claim made by the petitioner is challenged primarily on the ground that none of the materials relied on were given to him. In view of the said contention, we directed the learned Additional Advocate General to peruse the file and take instructions as to whether the documents were furnished to the petitioner.

¶20

The learned Additional Advocate General after taking instructions, fairly submitted that the report contains 103 pages and only 8 pages were given to the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

The submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General clearly shows that relevant documents were not given to the petitioner. In case, the Committee was of the view that all those documents should be taken note for deciding the issue, necessarily copies of documents should be given to the petitioner. It is not as if the matter could be decided by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on the basis of materials collected behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, we do see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the relevant documents were not furnished to the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶23

In the result, the order dated 19 October 2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. The Committee is directed to furnish all the documents to the petitioner, so as to enable him to offer his response. In case, the Committee has examined witnesses and opportunity was not given to the petitioner to cross examine those witnesses, necessarily those witnesses should be summoned for cross examination by the petitioner. There is no need to send the matter back for examining the witnesses. It would suffice if summons is issued to the witnesses for appearance before the State Level Committee, so as to enable the petitioner to cross examine them with reference to the statements given by them earlier. In case the Committee is of the view that the witnesses need to be examined afresh, it is open to them to take such a course. However, it must be ensured that the witnesses are examined in the presence of the petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity to cross examine them in the light of the statements given by them.

¶24

In any case, the Committee shall see that principles of natural justice is followed in all respects. Since the matter is pending for long, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to point out that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Committee for an early disposal of the matter.

¶25

The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)

¶28

/true copy/

¶29

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

TO:

¶32

The Chairman. State Level Scrutiny Committee and Secretary to Government,

¶33

Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶34

The Chief Superintendent of Jails, Jail Department, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.V.Vijay Shankar,Advocate sr.24335
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.24131
W.P. No. 35614 of 2015
vsn(co)
ss(4/5/2017)

¶36

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

R.Mohana Ranga Raju v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mohana Ranga Raju v. The Chairman

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

Union of India, rep. by Vs R.Anand

A.Siva Vs the Revenue Divsional

S.Neethisolan Vs Union of India

G.Ramaswamy Vs The Chairman

R. Pandurangan Vs The Revenue Divisional

K.Karthikeyan, Vs The State Level Scruitiny