Allowed

T.Venkatesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC19 Sept 2019WP/22991/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of ten writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought community certificates as members of the Hindu Kattunayakkan Community, a Scheduled Tribe. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate orders on the pending applications after a proper enquiry, assisted by an anthropologist, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to issue Community Certificates after conducting an enquiry with an anthropologist within three months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.09.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

W.P.Nos. 22991, 23110, 23112, 23115, 23116, 23129, 23131, 23134, 23136, 23141 of 2019

¶7

T. Venkatesan - Petitioner in WP No.22991/2019 V.Thirumurugan - Petitioner in WP No.23110/2019 C.Muthukumaran - Petitioner in WP No.23112/2019 C.Raji - Petitioner in WP No.23115/2019 S.Shankar - Petitioner in WP No.23116/2019 N.Kaathavarayan - Petitioner in WP No.23129/2019 P.Ananadan - Petitioner in WP No.23131/2019 P.Elayaraja - Petitioner in WP No.23134/2019 P.Arumugam - Petitioner in WP No.23136/2019 G.Rathinavelu - Petitioner in WP No.23141/2019 -Vs-

¶8

The Revenue Divional Officer, Thirukkovilur Division, Villupuram District. - Respondent in all WPs.

¶9

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conduct the enquiry along with the Head of the Anthropology Department School of Social Sciences University of Madras Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 / Anthropologist who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes in respect of thScheduled Tribe Communities of Tamil Nadu as held by the Honorable Apex Court in 1994 SCC (6) 241 and (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 113 and also in the light of the enquiry conducted by the RDOs with

¶10

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

¶11

the Anthropologist in respect of Villupuram Tindivanam and Chengalpet Districts and issue the Community Certificates to

¶12

1)the petitioner and his children namely V.Vishnu V.Vignesh and V.Shalini based on the petitioner Application dated 26.02.2019.

¶13

the petitioner and his children namely T.Subramani, T.Bharath and T.Sabitha based on the petitioner's Application dated 22.03.2019.

¶14

the petitioner and his sons namely M.Vishnu Deva and M.Sharan based on the petitioner Application dated 06.04.2019.

¶15

4)the petitioner and his children namely R.Gokul, R.Suhashini and R.Durga based on the petitioner Application dated 06.04.2019.

¶16

the petitioner and his children namely S.Rahul and S.Gopika based on the petitioner Application dated 06.04.2019.

¶17

6)the petitioner and his children namely K.Uthaya, K.Leelavathy and K.Pratheepan based on the petitioner Application dated 25.03.2019.

¶18

the petitioner and his children namely A.Subash Chandra Bose, A.Arul and A.Sivaranjani based on the petitioner Application dated 25.03.2019 within stipulated time.

¶19

the petitioner and his daughter namely E.Nishitha based on the petitioner Application dated 27.02.2019 within stipulated time.

¶20

9)the petitioner and his son namely A.Harish based on the petitioner Application dated 26.02.2019 within stipulated time.

¶21

and the petitioner and his sons namely R.Pushparajan and R.Elango based on the petitioner's Application dated 26.02.2019 respectively within stipulated time.

¶22

For Respondent .. Mr.E.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader in all W.Ps

¶23

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

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

In view of the commonality of the issue involved in all these writ petitions, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

¶27

2.In all these cases, the petitioners made applications seeking issuance of certificate as one belonging to Hindu Kattunayakkan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. Now, inasmuch as the applications made are stated to be still pending with the respondent, seeking appropriate orders, these writ petitions have been filed.

¶28

3.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶29

4.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that in accordance with law, these applications will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶30

5.In such view of the matter, a direction is issued to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the applications made by the petitioners by conducting enquiry, if so required, in the manner known to law. The aforesaid process will have to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

6.With the aforesaid direction, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukkovilur Division, Thirukkovilur, Viullupuram District.

¶36

+10ccs to M/s.N.Naganathan, Advocate Sr.80882 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.81153

¶37

W.P.Nos.22991 of 2019
etc., batch
rp[co]
srg 09/10/2019

¶38

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

T.Venkatesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venkatesan 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

K.Harish Prabhu Vs the State Rep by Its

Muthumalai Vs The Revenue Division Officer (Rdo)

V.Manickam Vs Dr.Anil Kumar Addepally

Husna Khatun Shaikh Vs the Superintendent of Police

Surat @ Ram Surat Vs State by

R.Parimalabai Vs the Commissioner of Police