Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3889 (MAD)

S. Dakshinamoorthy v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2014-10-16

ARUNA JAGADEESAN, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner has further stated that his brothers and his sister had obtained community certificates from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, during the year 1991, stating that they belong to Kattunayakan community. While so, the petitioner had preferred an application to the first respondent, on 16.5.2005, requesting for the issuance of community certificates to his children, namely, D. Sugasini and D. Sutharsini. However, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 25.8.2014, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, without conducting a proper enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and as the petitioner had not furnished sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner. Proper reasons have been given by the first respondent for rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent may be set aside and the matter may be directed to be placed before the second respondent for passing appropriate orders. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that, in the given facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for considering the claims made by the petitioner, afresh, by causing an enquiry. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for considering the claims made by the petitioner, afresh, by causing an enquiry. On receipt of the application and the relevant records relating to the issuance of the community certificate, the first respondent, namely, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, shall cause an enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by the observations made by the third respondent, in his impugned order, dated 25.8.2014, by following the procedures established by law and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.