Disposed

P.Ganesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC9 Aug 2019WP/20854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking issuance of a Community Certificate for Scheduled Tribe status. The Court held it would not conduct a roving enquiry and directed the petitioner to submit documents called for by the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks after document production.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit documents; Respondent directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks of document production.

P.Ganesan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.20854 of 2019

¶7

P.Ganesan S/o.Perumal .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner and his daughter G.Nandhini and Son G.Vignesh to the effect that they belong to Kattunayakan Community (Scheduled Tribe) in the light of Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, Revenue Inspector, Thiruvannamalai (North), Village Administrative Officer enquiry reports and School Certificates.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandra Kumar for Mr.N.Naganathan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, Special Government Pleader

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J]

¶13

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent to issue Community Certificates to the petitioner and his daughter G.Nandhini and Son G.Vignesh to the effect that they belong to ‘Kattunayakan’ Community (Scheduled Tribe) in the light of Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, Revenue Inspector, Thiruvannamalai (North), Village Administrative Officer's enquiry reports and School Certificates.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's family belong to ‘Kattunayakan’ Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. Petitioner's maternal uncle viz., Kannan has obtained a Community Certificate from Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram, on 01.03.2019, stating that he belongs to Kattunayakan Community. In the School Records, petitioner's community was mentioned as ‘Kattunayakan’. Likewise, in the school records of his wife and children. Petitioner's close relatives are also holding such a certificate. Petitioner submitted an application to respondent seeking issuance of Community Certificate to him, his wife and children, enclosing necessary documents. Since no action was taken, petitioner sent reminders one after another. Thereafter, respondent forwarded petitioner's application to the Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, on 22.02.2014 for conducting enquiry. The Revenue Inspector conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report to the Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, along with the report of Village Administrative Officer. Based on such reports, the Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, also submitted his report to the respondent stating that petitioner belongs to ‘Kattunayakan’ community and recommended to issue Community Certificate. However, till date, no order was passed. Having no other alternate remedy, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent, relying on the counter filed by respondent, submits that no specific recommendation has been made by Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai. Petitioner was called for enquiry by respondent on 09.10.2015 and based on the said enquiry, a reference has been made on 12.08.2016 to the Under Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai, towards getting clarification as to whether the petitioner would fall within the Scheduled Tribe category, which, again was forwarded to the Tribal Research Institute, Ooty on 07.10.2016. Respondent has also sent the enquiry details to the Tribal Research Institute, Ooty, on 21.05.2018. A summon was also issued to the petitioner calling him to produce certain original documents. Upon production of the said documents, respondent will pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application. Submitting as above, learned Special Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶18

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

¶19

This Court does not conduct any roving enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Presently, the matter

¶20

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

¶21

is pending on the file of respondent. In such circumstance, the petitioner is directed to submit the documents, called for by respondent and the respondent, taking into consideration the report of the State Level Scrutiny Committee and Anthropologist's report in respect of petitioner's relatives, is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of documents by the petitioner.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gm
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
+1cc to Mr.N.Naganathan, Advocate SR.No.68375
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.69386
Writ Petition No.20854 of 2019
SSD(CO)
GMY(12/09/2019)

¶24

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

P.Ganesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ganesan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Boopathi Vs The Principal District

C.K.Premkumar Vs The Registrar General

S.Natarajan Vs The Registrar General

B.Chinnasamy Vs The Sub Collector

Velu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Nithiyanantham Vs The Secretary to Government