Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4045 (MAD)

G. Gopal v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2014-10-29

ARUNA JAGADEESAN, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner belongs to Kattu Naicken community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioner had preferred an application for the issuance of community certificates to his son G.Vivek and his daughter G.Nagalakshmi. However, the first respondent, by his impugned order, dated 30.9.2013, had rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner should approach the Sub Collector, Tirupattur, where the petitioner's ancestors were residing and living. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is erroneous and invalid in the eye of law. 3. 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, dated 30.9.2013, may be set aside and the matter may be directed to be placed before the third respondent, for passing appropriate orders. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, we are of the considered view that, in the given facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.9.2013, rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Further, we find it appropriate to direct the first respondent to place the records relating to the impugned proceedings, dated 30.9.2013, before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the third respondent herein, within a period of four 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 records, the third respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, without being influenced by the observations made by the first respondent, in his impugned proceedings, dated 30.9.2013, by following the procedures established by law, and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.