Allowed

G.Karthick v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC3 Mar 2025WP(MD)/5564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of rejection of his Economically Weaker Section certificate application and issuance of the certificate. The court found the Tahsildar's own income certificate showed family income far below the threshold, held the impugned order unsustainable, set it aside, allowed the petition, and permitted a fresh reasoned application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order set aside; petitioner at liberty to file fresh EWS certificate application to be considered on its own merits with reasons; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

G.Karthick Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD).No.4058 of 2025

G.Karthick

... Petitioner

vs.

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kalligudi Taluk, Kalligudi, Madurai District. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent in online application No.TN-8620250122122 dated 22.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent herein to issue the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Certificate to the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maran For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is an Engineering graduate. He belongs to a Backward Class Community. He applied for grant of EWS (Economically Weaker Section ) Certificate. This application was made on 31.07.2024. As per the Revenue Inspector report, the application is rejected. The petitioner filed an another application on 13.08.2024, which was yet again rejected on the ground “Affidavit not submitted. So this petition is rejected”. He continued to claim that he belonged to Economically Weaker Section, he made out an applications on 03.09.2024 and 17.09.2024. Both the applications were rejected on the ground of “Revenue Inspector Report and personal enquiry of the Tahsildar”.

¶18

Therefore, he applied for a fresh certificate on 22.01.2025. This application too was rejected on the ground “Applicant family income sources details not attached, so not recommended” . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶19

2/8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶22

I heard Mr.M.Maran for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondent.

¶23

Mr.A.Kannan was ready with instructions of the Tahsildar. Mr.M.Maran reiterated all contentions stated in the affidavit and added that the petitioner has been given an offer for employment by the Superintendent of Post Office, Pattukottai Division. Hence, there is sense of urgency to obtain Economically Weaker Section certificate.

¶24

Mr.Kannan points out that the mother of the petitioner has 5 cents of residential plot in Nallamanayakkanpatti Village and she has also secured a patta under Patta No.650. In addition, she has a residential property to an extent of 850sq.ft, on which, they have constructed a two storey building. He also points out that the petitioner's mother is also having a share in Patta No.305 to an extent of 97.5 cents of agricultural land for the very same village. Hence, he states that the application under Economically Weaker Section category was rightly rejected under the impugned order.

¶25

3/8

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶28

The Government of India through its Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training had issued an office memorandum in No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res), dated 31.01.2019. The criteria for person to be covered under the Economically Weaker Section Scheme, is that the concerned person should not be SCs/STs/OBCs and the family has annual gross income should be below Rs.8.00 Lakh (Rupees Eight Lakh only). Apart from that, if the family of the applicant possess the following, he would not be eligible, irrespective of the family income :-

¶29

(i) 5 acres of agricultural land and above;

¶30

(ii) Residential at of 1000 sq ft. and above;

¶31

(iii) Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in notified

¶32

municipalities;

¶33

(iv) Residential, plot of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other than

¶34

the notified municipalities.

¶35

The term 'family' has been defined to be improved the applicant's parents, siblings, below the age of 18 and children below the age of 18.

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶39

In so far as the first criteria is concerned, the petitioner belongs to Ganjam Reddy Community, which is a Backward Class Community and therefore, the petitioner satisfies the first criteria. With respect to the first clause of the immovable property, as per the report of the Tahsilar, the holding of the petitioner's mother together with other relatives comes to 97.5 cents and the share of the mother herself is around 48.75 cents. This being less than 5 acres, the petitioner complies with category no.1. In so far as the residential properties are concerned, the report of the Tahsildar states that the petitioner's mother has a residential house of 850 sq.ft and vacant land of 5 cents.

¶40

The residential property should not exceed 1000sq.ftt . 850 sq.ft being less than 1000sq.ft. So a residential criteria is also met. Category no.3 would not apply, as Nallamanayakanpatti is not a notified Municipal area. For non-notified Municipal area, the holding should be 200sq. yards and above. 200 sq.yards corresponds to 4.136 cents. As the petitioner's mother possessed more than this extent, it is argued by Mr.Kannan that the petitioner is ineligible.

¶41

5/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶44

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tahsildar has not referred to the certificate issued by him regarding the income of the family on 30.07.2024. The certificate shows that the petitioner's family as over all income Rs.60,000/- per year. This certificate has been issued in Certificate No.TN-4202407241801.

¶45

Mr.Kannan urges that the petitioner does not comply with the requirement of Economic Weaker Section category, the ground of rejection is that the petitioner had not enclosed his income details. When the Tahsildar himself has certified on 30.07.2024 that the income of the family is less than Rs.60,000/- per annum, the rejection of the Tahsildar necessarily requires to be interfered with. Though the argument of Mr.A.Kannan would be plausible, the impugned order cannot be improved by way of written instructions or counter. Hence, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application, which shall be considered on its own merits. The authority shall give reason as to why he is rejecting the said application.

¶46

6/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶49

In result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶50

Index :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No Rmk

¶51

03.03.2025

¶52

To The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kalligudi Taluk, Kalligudi, Madurai District.

¶53

7/8

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶56

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶57

Rmk

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.5564 of 2025

¶59

03.03.2025

¶60

8/8

¶61

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

G.Karthick v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Karthick v. The Tahsildar

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

Chandra Mohan Vs The Sub Registrar

V.Chidambaram Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

C.Kanthimathi Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Esakkiammal Vs The District Collector

NiyazAhammed Vs The Additional Chief Secretary /

D. Muthuvel Vs The District Registrar (Admin)