Remanded

Minor R.G.Aventika v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC9 Apr 2026WP/5735/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Revenue Divisional Officer's non-speaking order rejecting an application for a Kondareddy Schedule Tribe community certificate and remanded the matter for spontaneous reconsideration of both petitioners, directing reasoned orders within three months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the respondent to pass reasoned orders within three months.

Minor R.G.Aventika Vs The Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.5735 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.6246 and 6244 of 2026

¶8

1.Minor R.G.Aventika D/o.A.Gokulan

¶9

2.Minor Sri R.G.Saran S/o.A.Gokulan, Minors both rep. by their Father and Natural Guardian A.Gokulan Both are residing at No 10, AVI Shree Gokulam, 3rd Cross Street, Kongu Nagar, Kalveerampalayam Coimbatore 641 046

¶10

Petitioners

¶11

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District

¶13

Respondent

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated Nil made in application

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

¶18

Nos.TN-52025051611501 and TN-52025051611809 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue online “Kondareddy” Schedule Tribe community certificates to the petitioners on the basis of community certificates already issued to the petitioners grandfather and father 19.03.1976 and 15.04.1984 .

¶19

For Petitioners: Mr.N.Naganathan

¶20

For Respondent: Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the respondent

¶25

dated 16.5.2025, whereby the application submitted for issuance of community certificate has been rejected completely by a non-speaking order in respect of the second petitioner. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the said petitioner was requested, vide order dated 16.5.2025, to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, on a particular date and the matter is still pending consideration.

¶26

_______________ Page 2 of 5_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

¶29

We find that the order passed in respect of the second

¶30

petitioner is a non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned for rejection of the claim made by the second petitioner.

¶31

We are of the view that the claim for issuance of a caste status certificate is a serious matter and requires serious consideration. Therefore, the impugned order in respect of the second petitioner cannot be allowed to be sustained only for the reason that the same is a non-speaking order.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order in respect of the second petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent to re-consider the application of the second petitioner for issuance of community certificate along with the first petitioner, who was requested to appear before the respondent. Both the petitioners would be free to participate in the enquiry before the respondent on a date to be fixed by the respondent. The respondent is directed to intimate the date well in advance to the petitioners for their appearance and thereafter pass reasoned orders. The said exercise is directed to be completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably _______________ Page 3 of 5_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

¶35

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶36

this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶37

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is

¶38

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶40

To:

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

¶45

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.P.No.5735 of 2026

09.04.2026

_______________ Page 5 of 5_

¶50

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

Minor R.G.Aventika v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor R.G.Aventika 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

Shivangi Flowers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director

Himanshu Pathak Vs Ministry of Electronics and Information

P. Manikandan Vs District Collector

M.Balaji Vs The District Collector

S.Mohamed Dhurabudeen Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil nadu

Oruginaindha Manapparai Taluka Manavari Vs the Election Commission of India