Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 712 (MAD)

Arul Rasu v. District Collector

2014-03-21

M.JAICHANDREN, M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this instant Writ of Mandamus praying for passing an order directing the Respondents to grant Community Certificate (Ganjam Reddy) in favour of the minor children of the Petitioner, namely, (1) A.Vignesh and (2) A.Mithra. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is the father of the children born out of the lawful wedlock, namely, A.Vignesh and A.Mithra, aged 16 years and 14 years respectively. He hails from the said village and belonging to Ganjam Reddy Community, Hindu Religion. The stand of the Petitioner is that Community Certificate was issued to him by the Second Respondent that he belonged to Ganjam Reddy Community. His brother Arasilangovan and his nephew Thilakraj and other family members were all given Ganjam Reddy Community Certificate. During the year 1989, his father purchased some properties by means of a sale deed dated 09.02.1989 wherein it was recited that he belongs to Ganjam Reddy Community. His mother Jayalakshmi also purchased a property on 31.05.1989 and in the said sale deed it was recited that she belongs to Ganjam Reddy Community. 3. Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on earlier occasion on 15.02.2012 by annexing all the relevant documents and inspite of the same, the Respondents have not issued the Ganjam Reddy Community Certificate, which he seeks in favour of his two minor children, namely A.Vignesh and A.Mithra and further this Court taking note of the fact that the Petitioner lastly addressed a communication dated 30.03.2012 addressed to the First Respondent – District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, seeking issuance of Ganjam Reddy Community Certificate for his son Vignesh and his daughter Mithra, this Court in the interest of Justice, Fair Play, Equity and Good Conscience, directs the Respondents to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 15.02.2012 and 30.03.2012, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the Petitioner to submit a copy of the representation dated 15.02.2012 and 30.03.2012 and the Petitioner is also directed to enclose, once again, all the supporting documents to the concerned Authorities without fail and the Respondents are directed to look into the representations of the Petitioner in a Just, Equitable, Objective and Dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits (detailing the process of reasoning), within the time frame adumbrated by this Court. 4. With the above said directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there will be no orders as to costs.