Disposed

Rishi L v. The Chairman

Madras HC18 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15661/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the District Collector's appellate order rejecting their claim to Scheduled Tribe (Kurumans) community certificates. Holding that disputed factual claims require examination by the competent authority and that a revision lies before the State Level Scrutiny Committee under G.O.(Ms.)No.147 dated 17.03.2016, the court disposed of the petition with liberty to file such revision

What the court decided

AI extract

Rishi L Vs The Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶7

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026 and

¶8

W.M.P(MD)Nos.11751, 11752 & 11754 of 2026

¶9

1.L.Rishi 2.L.Srikanth ... Petitioners

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.The Chairman, The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶13

3.The Sub Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukottai District.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶17

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Office,

¶18

Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶19

5.The Tahsildar, Iluppur Taluk, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Q1/21638/2022 dated 25.05.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioners certifying them as Hindu scheduled Tribe “Kurumans” in the light of the community certificate already possessed by the petitioners' father in respect of Scheduled Tribe “Kurumans” within the period stipulated by this Court.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Mohamed Zamil

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Parthiban Counsel for State

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶27

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶28

W.M.P(MD) No.11751 of 2026, filed seeking permission to file

¶29

a single Writ Petition, is ordered.

¶30

2.Challenging the order of the appellate authority rejecting the

¶31

appeal preferred by the petitioners for the grant of Scheduled Tribe (Kurumans) Community Certificates, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

¶32

3.The petitioners claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe (Kurumans) community and sought issuance of Scheduled Tribe (Kurumans) Community Certificates. However, their request was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Collector, the Appellate Authority. The District Collector also confirmed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional

¶33

3/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶36

Officer. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶37

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' parents had already been issued Scheduled Tribe (Kurumans) Community Certificates. He would further submit that, despite the petitioners having produced several relevant documents, the same were not properly considered by the authorities.

¶38

5.In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the issues involved are essentially questions of fact, which require proper examination by the competent authority. A Writ Petition cannot be the appropriate remedy for adjudication of such disputed factual issues. Admittedly, a revision lies before the State Level Scrutiny Committee against the order of the District Collector, as provided under G.O.(Ms.)No.147, Revenue [RA-3(2)] Department, dated 17.03.2016.

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶42

6.In view of the above, the petitioners are granted liberty to file a

¶43

revision before the State Level Scrutiny Committee challenging the order of the District Collector. The petitioners are at liberty to canvass all their contentions before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and produce all relevant documents in support of their claim. The petitioners are permitted to file such revision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such revision being filed, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall consider and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶44

7.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶45

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P(MD) Nos.11752 and 11754 of 2026 are closed.

¶46

[N.S.K.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.] 18.06.2026

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶48

5/7

¶49

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

¶50

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶51

¶52

¶53

1.The Chairman, The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department, Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶54

2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶55

3.The Sub Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukottai District.

¶56

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Office, Iluppur, Pudukkottai District.

¶57

5.The Tahsildar, Iluppur Taluk, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶58

6/7

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶61

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. and P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶62

¶63

W.P(MD)No.15661 of 2026

¶64

DATED : 18.06.2026

¶65

7/7

¶66

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

Rishi L v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rishi L v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaja Mohaideen Vs The District Collector

Gtl Infrastrcture Limited Vs S.Seenivasan

H.Abdul Razack Vs The District Collector

The Additional Chief Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Vs K.Muthuselvan

The Joint Commissioner, Vs K. Balasubramanian

V.C.Manimurasu Vs The District Collector