Disposed

S.Chithuraj v. The Revenue Divisiona Officer

Madras HC13 Jun 2018WP/22677/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court held that the petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies via appeal to the District Collector and revision to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner permitted to file appeal within two weeks; Appellate Authority to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to prefer appeal within two weeks; Appellate Authority directed to decide within six weeks. Writ Petition disposed.

S.Chithuraj Vs The Revenue Divisiona… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 18.04.2018

¶4

DELIVERED ON : 13.06.2018

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶7

and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.P.No.22677 of 2017
and WMP No.23776 of 2017
S.Chithuraj .... Petitioner
vs
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District ... Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for

¶10

the records in the order bearing No.Na.Ka.10791/2015/A4 dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Respondent and quashing the same, and directing the Respondent to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law and decide whether the Petitioner belongs to “ Kurumans” Scheduled Tribe.

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M. Radhakrishnan

¶14

For Respondents: Ms.Narmadha Sampath Addl.Advocate General-VIII assisted by Ms.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan Addl. Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU,J.,

¶16

The Petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the Order dated

¶17

18.07.2017 passed by the Respondent rejecting the request for issuance of “Kurumans” Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate and sought for consequential direction to hold fresh enquiry and decide whether the Petitioner belongs to Kurumans” Scheduled Tribe.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(Ms)No.235, Revenue [RA3(2)] Department, dated 26.06.2015 on the observations made by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the order dated 05.02.2015 in W.P.(MD)No.1355 of 2015 to provide at least one appeal remedy for factual adjudication, had constituted an

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

Appellate Authority, viz., the District Collector, to hear appeal against orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, rejecting the issuance of Schedule Tribe Community Certificate. In pursuance of the observations of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD)No.3708 of 2016, the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.(Ms)No.147, Revenue [RA-3(2)] Department, dated 17.03.2016, had provided for revision before the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the orders of the District Collector in appeals rejecting the issuance of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, this Court does not find any justification to entertain the present Writ Petition directly challenging the orders of rejection of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Petitioner without exhausting the effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the District Collector and thereafter, revision to the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

¶22

Though the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the Writ Petition, in the interests of justice, the Petitioner is permitted to prefer an appeal against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, rejecting the issuance of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate, before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such appeal is preferred, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and pass reasoned orders on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and communicate the decision to the concerned person, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶26

The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMP is closed.
(R.P.S.J.,) (P.D.AJ.,)
13.06.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
sr
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.SUBBIAH, J.,

and

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.,

¶32

sr
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.22677of 2017
13-06-2018

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Chithuraj v. The Revenue Divisiona Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chithuraj v. The Revenue Divisiona Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal H.Jain Vs Veena M.Jain

Vinod G Jain Vs Mayuri Davey Jain

M/S Shriram Transport Vs Mr.v.Palanisamy

S.Kandasamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Vasantha Vs State of Tamilnadu

Krishnamachari Ramu, Vs Mr.Srinivasa Raja