Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
Chandra Kishore Jha vs Mahavir Prasad & Ors on 21 September, 1999
V.C. Kadiruvelu vs Sub-Collector on 19 September, 1975
M.Karunakaran vs The Vellore on 28 July, 2006
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
A.Gopi @ Kandasamy vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 12 September, 2003

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madras High Court
P.Thangavel vs The Personal Assistant (General) on 5 September, 2012

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE: 05/09/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.(MD).No.11101 of 2012

&

M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012

P.Thangavel ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Personal Assistant (General)

The District Collector,

O/o.District Collectorate,

Chennai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kulithalai Taluk,

Karur District. ... Respondents

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.A2/502/2011 dated 20.09.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the second respondent to issue community certificate certifying that my sons T.Vinithkumar and T.Jegadhisa belong to Kattunayakan Community classified as Schedule Tribe, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

!For petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for Mahaboob Athiff

^For respondents... Mr.S.Sathish Kumar

AGP

:ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.09.2011 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue community certificate certifying that his sons namely T.Vinithkumar and T.Jegadhisa belong to Kattunayakan Community classified as Schedule Tribe.

2. The case of the petitioner was that he belongs to Kattunayakan Community classified as Schedule Tribe in the Schedule Tribe Presidential Order. The petitioner is married to one V.Pushpalatha, who is employed as an officer in the Canara Bank. The petitioner and his wife belong to Kattunayakan Community. The petitioner has been issued with community certificate dated 08.07.1976 by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kulithalai, that he belongs to Kattunayakan Community. The Community Certificate issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kulithalai has not been cancelled till date and it is in force till date.

3. The State Level Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 24.08.2009 certified that the petitioner's wife V.Pushpalatha also belongs to Kattunayakan Community. The State Level Scrutiny Committee also found that the community certificate issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet on 18.06.1979 in favour of V.Pushpalatha is genuine. The said V.Pushpalatha's brother Mr.V.Karunakaran was also certified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 29.07.2009 as belonging to Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe Community.

4. On 19.04.2009, the petitioner's wife made an application to the second respondent for issue of a permanent community certificate for herself and for her sons namely T.Vinithkumar and T.Jegadhisa. In pursuance thereof, the second respondent directed the Tahsildhar, Egmore, Chennai to hold an enquiry and to submit a report to the same. The Tahsildhar, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 19.11.2009 concluding that the petitioner's wife belongs to Kattunayakan Community and recommended for community certificate to the petitioner's wife and her children. However, despite the said recommendation and report of the Tahsildar, no certificate was issued to them. Therefore, the petitioner's wife filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.1709 of 2011 seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to issue community certificate to her and her sons in the light of the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, dated 14.09.2009.

5. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 27.01.2011 holding that as per G.O.Ms.No.61, Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare, (ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2005, it is only the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer would be the competent person to issue the schedule tribe community certificate and therefore, directed the petitioner's wife to prefer a fresh representation before the second respondent herein along with necessary affidavits insofar as issue of certificates to her children are concerned. The Division Bench of this Court also made it clear that the petitioner's wife had already granted a community certificate by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet and the same has not been cancelled till date and also as the genuineness of the same has been confirmed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, there is no necessity for her to apply for a new certificate. Therefore, the certificate issued to the petitioner's wife by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet is valid for all purposes. The Division Bench also made it clear that apart from the other documents, the certificate issued to the petitioner's wife should also be taken into consideration, while deciding the community status of the petitioner's sons.

6. On 03.03.2011, the petitioner's wife filed an affidavit to the second respondent along with all necessary documents including the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee affirming the community certificate issued to her and her brother as belonging to the Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe Community. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents did not communicate in any manner in respect of the application preferred by his wife. Thereafter, on 20.09.2011, the second respondent by his impugned proceedings intimated to the petitioner's wife that her request for issuance of community certificate for her children cannot be accepted. Aggrieved over the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner, the father, has filed the present writ petition.

7. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Sathish Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by both the counsels, it could be seen that the second respondent had declined to issue the community certificate to the petitioner's sons holding that;-

I) There are no person belonging to the Kattunayakan Community in any of the villages of Karur District;

II) The community certificate of the petitioner's wife and her brother has been issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kulithalai, who has no competence to issue such certificate and that the petitioner's wife had not submitted a community certificate issued by the competent authority; III) The petitioner's wife being a native of Krishnarayapuram, has not produced her relative's community certificate;

IV) The community mentioned in sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration.

9. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the District Census Handbook, Tiruchirapalli issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that Kattunayakan are found mostly in Kulithalai Taluk. That being the case, the first reasoning of the second respondent that there are no person belonging to Kattunayakan community in any one of the villages in Karur District is without any basis whatsoever. Therefore, the said finding is liable to be set aside.

10. It is not in dispute that the community certificate issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Kulithalai in the year 1976 in favour of the petitioner mentioning as Hindu Kattunayakan community has not been cancelled by any of the authorities till date.

11. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported in JT 1997 (7) S.C. 660 (R.Kandasamy v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, held that the certificates issued by the Tahsildars on or before 11.11.1989 are valid for all purposes. Therefore, the certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1976 is valid for all purposes. The second respondent ought not have rejected the community certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1976.

12. While the petitioner's wife submitted her application to the second respondent on 03.03.2011, she also enclosed all necessary documents including the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee affirming the community certificate issued to her and her brother as they are belonging to the Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe community. The State Level Scrutiny Committee clearly found that the community certificate issued to the petitioner's wife, V.Pushpalatha, by the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet on 18.06.1979 is genuine. The Division Bench also found in W.P.No.1709 of 2011, there is no necessity for her to apply for a new certificate. The second respondent also failed to take into consideration the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee affirming the community certificate issued to the petitioner's wife and her brother while passing the impugned order. That apart, the community certificate issued to the petitioner's wife on 18.06.1979 has not been cancelled till this day. Similarly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee by its proceedings dated 29.07.2009 found that the petitioner's brother-in-law V.Karunakaran belongs to Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe Community.

13. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the petitioner's wife V.Pushpalatha and her brother V.Karunakaran are all holding community certificates as belonging to Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe Community. The certificates issued to them, have not been cancelled till this day and they are in force till this day.

14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner, the petitioner's wife and her brother were issued with the community certificate as Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe community, the petitioner's sons are also to be issued with Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe community certificates. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

i) (2005) 12 SCC 248 (Phool Chandra Singh v. Laxmi Prasad), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that when earlier certificate granted in favour of the father, mother, grand-father as well as maternal uncle as 'Gond' community, son is also entitled to grant of caste community certificate similar to the certificate issued in favour of father, mother, grand-father and maternal uncle.

ii) 2010 (3) CTC 673 ( C.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam), wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner therein is entitled for issuance of community certificate as belonging to 'Konda Reddy' community on the basis of the community certificate issued to his parents and his brother which are in force.

iii) CDJ 2009 MHC 2051 (G.M.Malini & Anr. V. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore District). Wherein in the Division Bench one of us (MDJ) was a party, held that there is absolutely no justifiable reason on the part of the respondents therein to reject the request of the petitioners for the issuance of the community certificate, when the petitioners therein along with their applications produced community certificates of grand-father, paternal grandfather, father and brother as belonging to Hindu Kurumans Community and the genuineness of the same have not been questioned by the respondents therein.

15. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the order passed by the second respondent is just and proper. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader is not in a position to substantiate his submissions by any decision of this Court or by the Apex Court.

16. In the case on hand, the petitioner, the petitioner's wife and her brother were issued with community certificate as Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe. As already stated they have not been cancelled and there are in force till this day. As such, following the ratio laid down in the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the respondents without any basis whatsoever declined to issue community certificate to the petitioner's sons. We are also of the considered view that the petitioner's sons namely T.Vinithkumar and T.Jegadhisa are entitled for issuance of community certificates as belonging to Hindu Kattunayakan Schedule Tribe Community.

17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20.09.2011 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner's sons namely T.Vinithkumar and T.Jegadhisa, as they are belonging to Hindu Kattunayakan Community, which is classified as Schedule Tribe, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.

JIKR

To

1.The Personal Assistant (General)

The District Collector,

O/o.District Collectorate,

Chennai.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kulithalai Taluk,

Karur District.