Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3783 (MAD)

Tamilselvan v. Collector, Kancheepuram District

2012-09-03

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is residing at No.2/12, N.G.O. Colony, Sirperumbudur Town and Taluk, Kancheepruam District. The house at No.2/12, N.G.O. Colony, referred to above, belongs to his father. He was residing with his father viz., Thanthoni, his mother viz., Mariammal, his younger brother viz., Manivannan and his younger sister viz., Uma Maheswari. 2. The ration Card issued by the third respondent for the joint family for the period 20052009 bears five members, viz., Thanthoni, Mariammal, Tamilselvan (petitioner), Manivannan and Uma Maheswari. 3. The petitioner got married on 29.04.2007 with one Subathradevi, D/o. Swaminathan. He got a certificate deleting the name of his wife from the ration card of the family of his wife. He wanted a separate card for him, his wife and his two children and for that purpose, he wanted his name to be deleted in the joint family ration card. 4. Without deleting the petitioner's name in the joint family ration card and giving a separate ration card to him by including his wife and his two children, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2012. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 19.01.2012 and for a direction to the second respondent to issue separate ration card to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal, as the facts are borne out of the records and the issue also lies in a narrow compass. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The impugned order dated 19.01.2012 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 9. Three reasons are given in the impugned order for refusing to give a separate ration card to the petitioner. (i) The first reason is that, the petitioner is living in a joint family. I am not able to understand this reason, since the petitioner has stated that he wants to come out of the joint family and he wants, his name to be deleted in the joint family ration card, that is issued to the joint family of the petitioner. After marriage, the petitioner wanted to come out of the joint family. This is a common feature in the society. But, the second respondent had stated that, since the petitioner is residing in a joint family, he could not be given a ration card. That reason does not stand for scrutiny. After marriage, the petitioner wanted to come out of the joint family. This is a common feature in the society. But, the second respondent had stated that, since the petitioner is residing in a joint family, he could not be given a ration card. That reason does not stand for scrutiny. (ii) The second reason is that, the address of the petitioner as well as the address of the joint family is one and the same. The second respondent failed to apply his mind to the facts of the issue. The petitioner has stated that he wants to reside in the same house separately. In such an event, the address could be the same. The same is objected to by the second respondent. Hence, the second reason has no merit. (iii) As far as the third reason is concerned, it has some merit. Without deleting the name of the petitioner's wife from the ration card of the family of his wife, he could not ask for inclusion of her name in the ration card that could be issued to him. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the name of the wife of the petitioner was deleted in the ration card of her family. He also produced the order dated 21.08.2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Ambattur deleting the name of the petitioner's wife from the family card of her family. The said certificate is extracted thereunder:- “TAMIL” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Further, a direction is issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to issue a separate family card to the petitioner, as required by him, including the name of his wife and his two children, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.