Dismissed

M.Sundararajan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC20 Jul 2017WP/37394/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the inclusion of Kuravan synonyms in the Denotified Communities list, the Court held that the Backward Classes Commission was seized of the matter and extended its term to 2018, thus no adjudication was required in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed; liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach the Commission within two weeks to submit representation.

M.Sundararajan, Vs The Tamil Nadu State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:20.07.2017

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

W.P.No.37394 of 2015

¶8

M.Sundararajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Government
Reb. By Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Backward Classes and Minority
Communities Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

3.The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission 212, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ..Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing to the Respondents herein to omit all entries of 27 synonyms of Kuravan under the list of Denotified Communities of Tamil Nadu, considering them as over-inclusion therein, in view of synonymous entry already made in Self Help Group.No.36 'Kuravan, Sidhanar' under the Scheduled Castes (SC) in Tamil Nadu as was adopted in the case of “Veppur Parayar” and “Venganur Adidravidar”.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Special Government Pleader

¶16

For R3 : No appearance

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.]

¶19

It is represented, on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2, that

¶20

a Commission has been set up vide a Gazette Notification dated 14.03.2005 [Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (Department of Social Justice and Empowerment)] and the Commission's term originally expires on 11.02.2017. On going through the contents of S.O.463(E) dated 12.02.2014, it is brought to the notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Commission was directed to submit its Report within three years from the date of appointment of the Chairman. In this regard, it is projected on the side of the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Commission's term is extended upto the year of 2018 and that Commission is presently doing its work in this regard.

¶21

2.In view of the fact that the Commission has seized of the

¶22

matter and to submit its Report, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the Petitioner in the present Writ

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

Petition cannot be acceded to by this Court. However, this Court opines that the Petitioner is to work out his remedy before the Commission by approaching it, if he so desires, of course, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law.

¶26

3.Since nothing survives for adjudication in the present Writ Petition, in view of the Commission's time is extended till the year 2018, this Court closes the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Commission within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the Petitioner approaches the Commission within the period adumbrated by this Court, then, the Commission shall take note of the representation if any to be submitted by the Petitioner and to act as it deems fit and proper, based on the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface. No costs.

¶27

(M.V., J.) (P.D.A., J.) 20.07.2017

¶28

Speaking Order Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No Sgl

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

M.VENUGOPAL, J. and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

¶32

Sgl

¶33

¶34

1.The Tamil Nadu State Government Reb. By Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶35

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Backward Classes and Minority Communities Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission 212, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶36

W.P.No.37394 of 2015

¶37

20.07.2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.Sundararajan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sundararajan, v. The Tamil Nadu State

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

Kavi Bharathi Vidyalaya Vs The Special Officer

Thamarai International Vs The Special Officer

Thirumoorthy, Vs the Tamil Nadu Pollution

Dr.Geethalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

St.Marys Matriculation Boys Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

R.Jayaraj Vs The Registrar