Allowed

P.Kavitha v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Mar 2024WP/4521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's online application for a Scheduled Caste community certificate was rejected without reasons. The Madras High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Tahsildar to consider her representation manually after enquiry and hearing, within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order quashed; Tahsildar to consider representation with enquiry and hearing within twelve weeks.

P.Kavitha Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

Mrs.P.Kavitha

.. Petitioner

The District Collector Collectorate Office Dharmapuri District

¶12

The Thasildar Tahsildar Office

¶13

Dharmapuri Taluk and District

¶14

The Revenue Inspector Dharmapuri Taluk and District

¶15

The Village Administrative Officer Kadakathur Village Dharmapuri Taluk and District .. Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Online Application No.TN -5202307041992 order dated 11.07.2023 and to quash the same and

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

¶20

consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner served to the respondents on 01.07.2023.

¶21

For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Dayalan For Respondents :: Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order showing the

¶25

status of the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of community certificate, as rejected without assigning any reason.

¶26

The petitioner states that she belongs to Scheduled Caste

¶27

community and her parents migrated with their children from Krishnagiri District to Kancheepuram District for survival. After the petitioner's birth, it is stated that her parents came back to their native Krishnagiri with their family and the petitioner was studying in a panchayat school in Hosur. The petitioner states that her father passed away before they came to Hosur and her mother also passed away when they were living in Krishnagiri. Except

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

¶31

the petitioner's elder sister who took care of the petitioner for sometime, the

¶32

petitioner states that she had no other relative till her marriage. The petitioner states that she wants to continue her studies and hence requested for issuance of community certificate by enclosing the certificate of her sister through online application dated 24.05.2023. However, the said application was rejected through online giving the following reason - “Applicant has submitted certificate is not genuineness for DLC hence the application was rejected” impugned dated 11.07.2023. The petitioner states that she has once again applied for community certificate based on the school record and the legal heirship certificate through her representation dated 01.07.2023, which has been acknowledged on 05.07.2023. Since the said representation has not been considered, she has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

This Court has repeatedly held that the rejection of application submitted by candidates for community certificate through online without assigning reasons, is not proper. We have also referred to the order passed by different Benches giving certain directions. This Court in few cases has

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

¶37

suggested that the official respondents have to consider the application by following the procedure that was prescribed for disposing of the application manually. The petitioner is driven to Court because of the impugned order and the impugned order without assigning any reason to the understanding of anyone, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner by following the procedure prescribed for considering the application manually and pass appropriate orders, after holding enquiry and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶38

Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 20.03.2024 ss

¶39

¶40

The District Collector Collectorate Office Dharmapuri District

¶41

The Thasildar

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

¶45

Tahsildar Office Dharmapuri Taluk and District

¶46

The Revenue Inspector Dharmapuri Taluk and District

¶47

The Village Administrative Officer Kadakathur Village Dharmapuri Taluk and District

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND

N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.4521 of 2024

20.03.2024

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶57

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

P.Kavitha v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kavitha v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Geetha Devadas, Vs Ms.Kasturi

J.Dharmasagaram Vs Directorate of Municipal Administration

J.Dharmasagaram Vs Directorate of Municipal Administration

Anjali Iyer Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Tvl .Sree Rajendra Steels Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)(Fac)

Bala N.Vinoth Kumar Vs the Commissioner