Dismissed

R.Kalpana v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Mar 2024WP/34017/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the District Collector's communication seeking additional particulars from the RDO while considering her appeal against rejection of her Kurumans Scheduled Tribe community certificate application. The court found no ground to interfere, noting an earlier order had only required consideration of her genealogy, and dismissed the writ petition as unnecessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

R.Kalpana Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

R.Kalpana

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector Dharmapuri

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in the order bearing Na.Ka.No.317/2021/A2 dated 22.09.2023 passed by respondent no.1 and quashing the same and directing the respondents to issue Kurumans Scheduled Tribe Community Certificates to the petitioner, her husband Mr.V.Perumal and her children Raghul and Shalini within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court.

¶15

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Radhakrishnan

¶16

For Respondents :: Mr.R.Vigneshwaran Government Advocate

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)

¶22

The petitioner states that she belongs to 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe

¶23

community. Earlier she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6652 of 2019 for issuance of a mandamus to direct the second respondent therein to issue the community certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe community. It is admitted that the petitioner's application for issuing the community certificate that she belongs to 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe community, was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings dated 27.07.2019. As against the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector. When the first respondent/appellate authority entertained the appeal, she called for a report with additional particulars in relation to the petitioner's claim that she belongs to 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner has challenged the proceeding of the District Collector, by which the District Collector has called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer/original authority with necessary details, for further enquiry, in this writ petition.

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

¶28

first respondent ought to have directed the second respondent to issue 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe community certificate to the petitioner, her husband and her children, by considering the petitioner's appeal, in the light of the Division Bench order dated 14.03.2019 passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.6652 of 2019 filed by the petitioner earlier.

¶29

We find that except the above ground, the petitioner's affidavit does not indicate any other ground. It is true that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6652 of 2019 to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to decide the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2015 and to issue the 'Kurumans' – Scheduled Tribe community certificate. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 14.03.2019, made the following observation:-

¶30

“5. However, the only ground raised by the petitioner is that the Genealogy (Family Tree of the blood relatives)/Relationship Certificate of the petitioner was not properly considered by the first respondent, as her blood relatives were issued with the Community Certificate.

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶34

Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the first respondent-RDO may be directed to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner and her family members.

¶35

But this Court is not inclined to give any positive direction, since the grievance of the petitioner is that the Genealogy (Family Tree)/Relationship Certificate was not considered by the respondents. Accordingly, the first respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner, dated 17.08.2015 for issuance of Community Certificate to herself, her husband Mr.V.Perumal and their children Raghul and Shalini. The first respondent-RDO shall consider the abovesaid Genealogy (Family Tree)/Relationship Certificate of the petitioner and examine the relationship between the petitioner and her relatives and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders on the said application, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also considering the enclosures made in the said application filed before the first respondent-RDO. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

¶36

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶39

claim of the petitioner and it is for the first respondent-RDO to analyse the same before passing orders on the said application. Ultimately, after complying with the above direction, if the Community Certificates are issued by the first respondent-RDO to the petitioner, her husband and their children, the same are subject to verification at a later point of time by the second respondent-State Level Scrutiny Committee.”

¶40

The direction of this Court can only be taken to the extent that the Revenue Divisional Officer, while hearing the application, was expected to consider the relationship between the petitioner and her relatives, as the petitioner had contended that her blood relatives were issued with community certificates. That cannot be a reason to entertain the present writ petition, where the order impugned is only the communication by which the District Collector/appellate authority had asked for additional details while considering or disposing the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. This Court finds that the instant writ petition is wholly unnecessary and probably to drag the proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this Court has not

¶41

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶44

considered any issue on merits and it is open to the petitioner to produce

¶45

relevant documents before the District Collector at the time of enquiry. No

¶46

order as to costs.

¶47

Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 27.03.2024

¶48

¶49

¶50

The District Collector Dharmapuri

¶51

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

¶55

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.34017 of 2023

27.03.2024

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Kalpana v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.Kalpana v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.B.Ravindran Vs Member Secretary

M.B.Ravindran Vs Member Secretary

S.Velladurai Vs Muniandi

N.Jayaram Vs P.Nithesh

N.Anwar Hussain Vs The Commissioner

Kaliyappan Vs the District Collector