Dismissed

Adaikalasamy Aided v. The Commissioner

Madras HC17 Sept 2019WP/1974/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging an order upholding the 5th Respondent's Community Certificate. The Court refused to interfere, holding it could not act as an appellate authority over the decision maker who relied on a Vigilance Cell report.

What did the court decide?

The Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P.No.2217 of 2019 is closed.

Adaikalasamy Aided Vs The Commissioner — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.09.2019 CORAM:

¶3

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶4

Writ Petition No.1974 of 2019

¶5

Adaikalasamy Aided Primary School,
rep. By its Secretary Thiru. A.Henry,
Vishwanathapuram,
Tiruvidaimaruthoor,
Tanjore District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Adi-Dravida Welfare Department,
Chennai – 5.
2. The District Collector and Chairman,
District Vigilance Committee,
O/o. District Collector,
Thiruvarur District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thiruvarur Taluk,
Thiruvarur.
4. The District Welfare Officer,
Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department,
Tiruvarur.
5. M.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.32450/2002/K5, dated 21.12.2016, signed on 24.12.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to conduct de novo enquiry concerning the genuineness of the 5^th Respondent's Community Certificate.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran

¶9

For Respondent 1 to 4 : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

[Order of the court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.]

¶12

The Petitioner, who is the employer of the 5th Respondent has come forward to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.32450/2002/K5, dated 22.12.2016, by which, it was held that the Community Certificate produced by the 5th Respondent is true, in pursuance of the re-conversion which took place during the practice adopted by following Hinduism.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the impugned order has been passed by the 2^nd Respondent on the premise that a Gazette Notification has been obtained, declaring the status of the 5th Respondent as a Hindu - Scheduled Caste, as against Christianity. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order will have to be set aside.

¶14

Learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 submitted that it is not, as if based on the Gazette Notification, the impugned order has been passed. Way back, as early as on 06.02.1997, the Tahsildar, Tiruvarur has issued Community Certificate to the 5^th Respondent after due verification. Thereafter, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted a Report on 25.08.2014. Thus, based on the aforesaid materials, the 2nd Respondent has come to the conclusion that the 5th Respondent belongs to Hindu - Scheduled Caste Community. According to him, there is no need for any documentary evidence as against the practice followed and there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.

¶15

In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd Respondent. In the decision making process, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority to review the materials taken into consideration by the 2nd Respondent. It is not, as if the 2nd Respondent had, as such, acted only on the Gazette Notification. Materials have been taken into consideration including the Report of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Vigilance Cell. After all, Petitioner is only the employer of the Respondent No.5.

¶16

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

¶17

In such view of the matter, we do not find any error in
the impugned order passed by the 2 nd Respondent, warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
W.M.P.No.2217 of 2019 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(aeb)
To:
1. The Commissioner,
Adi-Dravida Welfare Department,
Chennai – 5.
2. The District Collector and Chairman,
District Vigilance Committee,
O/o. District Collector,
Thiruvarur District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Thiruvarur Taluk,
Thiruvarur.
4. The District Welfare Officer,
Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department,
Tiruvarur.
+1cc to Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, Advocate SR.79767
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.80183
W.P.No.1974 of 2019
BS(CO)
CB(06/11/2019)

¶18

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

Adaikalasamy Aided v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adaikalasamy Aided v. The Commissioner

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

K.Nallammal Vs the Inspector of Police

Dcb Bank Ltd, Vs P.Ponnian

D.Ramya, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.v.Moorthy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Parvathy, Aged 36 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Ramesh Khimsura, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu