Petitioner sought Schedule Tribe Community Certificate for her children. High Court found petitioner had alternative remedy via appeal to State Level Scrutiny Committee. Court dismissed writ petition, directing petitioner to file appeal within two weeks.
None granted. Petitioner directed to file appeal before State Level Scrutiny Committee within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 2741 of 2018
Jayalakshmi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
(CV3) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. ..Respondents
Prayer:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for records in proceedings in Na.Ka. NO. 16088/2016/CO3 dated
13.11.2017 on the file of the 2 nd respondent and quash the same
and direct the respondents to issue Schedule Tribe Community
Certificate to the children of the petitioner viz. 1. M.
Sandhiya 2. M. Vallarasu and 3. M. Poovarasan.
For Petitioner :: Mr.G. Rajan
For Respondents :: Mr.S.N. Parthasarathy,
Government Advocate
(Order of the Court was made by R. SUBBIAH,J.)
This writ petition is filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in proceedings in
Na.Ka. No. 16088/2016/CO3 dated 13.11.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to issue Schedule Tribe Community Certificate to the children of the petitioner viz. 1. M. Sandhiya 2. M. Vallarasu and 3. M. Poovarasan.
The petitioner, who was born at Kaliyagoundanur Village, Dharmapuri District, belongs to Hindu Kurichan Community, which is classified as a Scheduled Tribe Community. According to the petitioner, in her school admission slip, her community has been mentioned as Hindu Kurichan and her husband also belongs to the said community. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the admission slips and transfer certificates of her children, the community has been mentioned as Hindu Kurichan. Further, one E. Sankaranarayanan, who has been issued with Hindu Kurichan community certificate and which has also been approved by the State Level Scrutiny Committee vide proceedings dated 13.02.2015, is her nephew. That being so, the petitioner filed an application before the 3rd respondent seeking issuance of Hindu Kurichan community certificate for her children, namely, M.Sandhiya, M.Vallarasu and M.Poovarasan. However, it was not considered, which necessitated the petitioner to file W.P. Nos. 12210 to 12212 of 2012 before this Court seeking a direction to consider her application. Though the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.04.2012 directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders after holding a detailed enquiry and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 30.07.2012, which was challenged by the petitioner again by way of W.P. No. 23670 of 2012. This Court, by order dated 17.12.2013 set aside the order of rejection of the 3rd respondent and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order. Even thereafter, the 3rd respondent replicated the earlier order and rejected the request of the petitioner for issue of community certificate to her children by proceedings dated 13.06.2014 and the petitioner questioned the same once again by filing W.P. No. 26750 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 01.08.2016, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the District Collector by way of an appeal as against the order passed by the 3rd respondent, with a further direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months therefrom after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
parties.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nv
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has exhausted the alternate remedy of appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee before filing the writ petition?
Whether the writ petition can be entertained when an alternative statutory appeal exists against the impugned order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayalakshmi
The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV3) Department
The District Collector, Dharmapuri
The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri
R. SUBBIAH
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
