Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3577 (MAD)

D. Loganathan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2014-09-23

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. 1. Challenging the proceedings dated 10.5.2013 issued by the Respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, refusing to grant Community Certificate as Konda Reddy (Scheduled Tribe) to the daughters of the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the Respondent to issue the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Konda Reddy community which is a Scheduled Tribe as per the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 and that his wife also has been described as Scheduled Tribe in her school records. According to the petitioner, his close relatives also have been issued with Community Certificates describing them as belonging to the Konda Reddis. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, seeking for issuance of Community Certificates for his daughters, viz., L. Sharmila and L. Lavanya, the same was rejected by order dated 24.5.2011 stating that he has to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer of his native District from where his family hails. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition W.P. No. 16317 of 2011 and this Court, by order dated 02.01.2012, disposed of the same with liberty to him to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, with an application dated 27.02.2012 seeking for grant of Community Certificate to his daughters and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.5.2013, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. The respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Reddy community besides stating that the documents submitted by him at the time of enquiry were all photostat copies and original of the same were not produced. 4. Heard Mr. V. Vijayshankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent and perused the records. 5. The issue involved in this case is whether Community Certificate can be issued to the children of the petitioner or not. 6. 4. Heard Mr. V. Vijayshankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent and perused the records. 5. The issue involved in this case is whether Community Certificate can be issued to the children of the petitioner or not. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would plead that the Community Certificates have already been issued in favour of the petitioner as well as his wife being parents and when the same are valid and subsisting, his children are also entitled to get certificates on that basis. Expatiating his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the certificates issued to the petitioner and his wife and other relatives hold good, they have to be accepted and the minor children cannot be denied the benefit of the communal status of Konda Reddy (ST) community. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others vs. Sumit Anand [ 2005 (12) SCC 248 ] and C.V. Kalaivanan vs. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District [ 2010 (3) CTC 673 ]. 8. Proceeding further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the report of the Tahsildar dated 12.3.2011, which is filed as a document, and the same reads as follows :- “TAMIL” 9. A mere reading of the said report of the Tahsildar would show that the Tahsildar, Coimbatore, had recommended for issuance of the Community Certificate to the petitioner. While so, it is seen that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, had earlier rejected the petitioner's application vide order dated 24.5.2011 and directed him to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, as the petitioner belongs to Salem. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that in earlier round of litigation, when the said order dated 24.5.2011 was challenged in W.P. No. 16317 of 2011, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, for issuance of the Community Certificate based on which, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, who rejected the same by impugned order dated 10.5.2013. It is further seen that at the time of enquiry, though the petitioner had produced before the respondent as many as 18 documents including the certificate issued to his relatives, sale deed, copy of the school admission register, SSLC book of the petitioner, etc., the respondent had rejected all the supporting documents filed by the petitioner on the ground that the originals were not produced. 11. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph G of his affidavit and the same may be usefully extracted below :- “.... The petitioner respectfully submits that at the time of enquiry he had produced for perusal all original certificates except his own community certificate of which the original is not available and is with his employer. All other documents in original were produced twice and perused by the RDO. It is therefore incorrect to state that originals were not shown. In any event, the petitioner submits that non-production of the original cannot be a ground to disbelieve the documents. ...” However, it is admitted by the petitioner that his own Community Certificate in original, could not be produced before the respondent. 12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner and his wife and relatives stating that they belong Konda Reddy Community are valid and subsisting. The fact also remains that those certificates have not been cancelled in the manner known to law. When such valid certificates are produced before the authority, the same should have been taken into consideration for all purposes even for granting Community Certificate to children of the petitioner. 13. The question as to whether the service records, S.S.L.C. Book and School Transfer Certificate of the father of the petitioner and the connected records could be the basis for issuance of community certificate was, in fact, considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and others V. Sumit Anand (cited supra) and the Apex Court was not inclined to interfere with order of the High Court directing the authority for issuance of community certificate on the basis of the certificates already issued to his parents, grand parents, uncle, etc. 14. 14. In this context, it would not be out of place for this Court to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Kandasamy vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust [ 1997 (7) SCC 505 ] wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held as under :- “On a doubt being raised regarding the validity of certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu on 3.4.1991 informed the Collectors of various districts in Tamil Nadu that "the permanent Community Certificate issued to Scheduled Tribes by Tehsildars up 11.11.89 is valid." This communication had been placed on record in the High Court. From a combined reading of G.O.M.S. No. 2137 dated 11.11.89 and letter of the Joint Secretary dated 3.4.1991, (supra) it follows that whereas a Community Certificate after 11.11.89 is required to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, but the Community Certificates issued by the Tehsildar prior to 11.11.89 are valid certificates. In view of this position, it was not proper for the respondent to have insisted upon a fresh certificate to be produced by the appellant from the Revenue Divisional Officer as admittedly the Community Certificate produced by the appellant had been issued by the Tehsildar concerned in 1987, that is, prior to 11.11.89.” 15. In our opinion, the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the face of it and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. In matters of issuing Community Certificate, of course, the competent authority is entitled to make a local verification to satisfy himself, as to whether the applicant belongs to a particular community or not. However, that cannot be the only test to find out the genuineness of the claim. In the event, a claim is made on the basis of the fact that the applicant's father was issued with a Community Certificate certifying himself belonging to Schedule Tribe Community and that when the certificate is not assailed in the manner known to law, such document would be a valid document for the concerned authority to rely upon and issue a Community Certificate. In the instant case, on the facts, there is no dispute that the petitioner has produced the other documents, viz., community Certificate issued to the relatives of the petitioner, Register copy of the school admission, SSLC book of the petitioner, which could be considered to be the genuine documents and when those documents refer the community of the individual concerning, it would certainly be the valid piece of evidence for issuance of Community Certificate. We do not find any reason, as to why those documents have been discarded and rejected, while the application for issuance of community certificate was considered. Moreover, a perusal of the order would show that the respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer has not even cared to refer to those documents showing his bent of mind in not issuing the Community Certificate. 16. Furthermore, the impugned order passed by the respondent has not given any valid reasons as to why the Community Certificate issued to the parents should not be considered or in what way they are invalid for the purpose of issuing Community Certificate to the children of the petitioner. Merely because originals are not produced, the same cannot be rejected. The other reason assigned by the respondent for rejecting the school certificate and the SSLC certificate on the ground that they are entered in the Register based on oral declaration, is a far cry from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions. 17. It is not as if the law does not have a remedy against a wrongful claim of communal status. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Letter No. 8369/CV-1/2010-1 dated 03.5.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government regarding issuance of Community Certificates. The Government also has issued G.O. (MS) No. 106 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV.1) Department dated 15.10.2012 prescribing the procedure as to how a community certificate issued to persons belonging to ST / SC , can be tested and errors can be rectified. 18. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is seen that the competent authority, who had analysed the documents, particularly, the SSLC Book, took a decision that the parents used to give some declaration at the time of admission of their children, but that could not be an authenticated document, to be taken into consideration. 18. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is seen that the competent authority, who had analysed the documents, particularly, the SSLC Book, took a decision that the parents used to give some declaration at the time of admission of their children, but that could not be an authenticated document, to be taken into consideration. One more aspect the authority took note of was, that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were all photostat copies. 19. If that could be the position, the view taken by the authority as to the demand of original documents is reasonable and justifiable. But, at the same time, doubting the School Leaving Certificate, which is one of the vital documents relied upon by the petitioner, could be a factor to be examined and that document cannot be doubted, provided the petitioner furnishes the original. 20. In the instant case, the conclusion arrived at by the authority as to the authenticity of the document, informing of his own perception to the validity of the document, in our considered opinion, is not correct and, therefore, the impugned proceedings, in that view, are not in accordance with law. However, it is pertinent to note that any document relied upon by the petitioner could be a material in original and such a material is also necessary. 21. Under the circumstances, we feel it appropriate that the matter requires reconsideration and the decision needs to be re-examined by the respondent/authority. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter remanded to the respondent, for fresh consideration. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and as there is no dispute as to the documents, which were produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer at the time of enquiry, evidencing the community of the father of the petitioner as Konda Reddy Community coupled with the other documents, this Court is of the considered opinion, that it is a fit case, where the matter can be remanded to the authority concerned. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 10.5.2013 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed and remitted back to the respondent to conduct fresh enquiry regarding issuance of Community Certificate to the daughters of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 10.5.2013 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed and remitted back to the respondent to conduct fresh enquiry regarding issuance of Community Certificate to the daughters of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to produce the original documents that he wants to rely on, for the purpose of obtaining the Community Certificate to the daughters, before the respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.