Disposed

V.Rajkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC10 Apr 2017WP/8474/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the petitioner's application for a Scheduled Tribe community certificate within three months. The court held that this direction was procedural and did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the community classification.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and dispose of the application for Community Certificate within three months.

V.Rajkumar Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

¶7

V.Rajkumar .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer

¶9

Harur, Dharmapuri District. ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) community as per the application of the petitioner dated 12.01.2016.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Dhananjayan,Spl.G.P.

¶13

O R D E R K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶14

The petitioner submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer requesting to issue a Community Certificate indicating that he belongs to Kurumans community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. Since follow up action was not taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner is before us.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶16

The respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the application submitted by the petitioner on 12 January 2016 on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

We make it clear that the direction to consider the application should not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. In short, it is for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent to consider the matter purely on merits and in the

¶18

light of the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and subsequently in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham [(2012) 1 SCC 333].

¶19

The writ petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Harur, Dharmapuri District.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy,advocate,sr.21469
+1 cc to Govt.Pleadere,sr.21711.
gj(co)
krd 25/4
W.P. No. 8474 of 2017

¶20

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

V.Rajkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajkumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

M.Prakash Vs The Sub Collector

K.Jayaprakash Vs The District Collector

K.Gunasekaran, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

union of India rep.by Vs K.Pandiselvam

T.Thimma Reddi Vs the Tamilnadu State Level

V.Sankaran, Vs The Sub- Collector