Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2144 (MAD)

M. Valliammai v. District Collector, Villupuram

2022-07-15

R.SUBRAMANIAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the letter dated 02.09.2016 in Na.Ka.A5/1999/2016 dated 02.09.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to accord the benefits to the petitioner under Moovalur Ramaamirtham Ammaiyar Thirumana Udhavi Thittam.) 1. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order of the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for financial assistance for her daughter's marriage under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Marriage Assistance Scheme. 2. Under the said Scheme, aid is provided by the Government to persons who are economically weaker for performing of the marriage of their daughters. This Scheme requires the applicant to make an application at least 40 days prior to the marriage and G.O.Ms.No.49 issued on 26.07.2011 empowers the Officer concerned to accept applications till a day before the marriage. It also states that the applications on the date of the marriage or after the date of the marriage will not be entertained. 3. The petitioner would claim that she had applied to the 2nd respondent even before the date of the marriage and had also furnished required certificates viz., Nativity Certificate and Income Certificate. Since the assistance was not provided, she had performed the marriage with great difficulty on 29.06.2015. Thereafter, when she approached the 2nd respondent to find out the status of the application, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent advised her to make another application online. Complying with the said advice, the petitioner had applied online on 05.01.2016. Since no orders were passed for more than 8 months, the petitioner sent a representation on 22.08.2016 to the District Collector, as well as the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2016 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that she had not made application prior to the marriage. The petitioner would claim that she had in fact made an application prior to the marriage, but, due to her illiteracy, she had not obtained an acknowledgement and her failure to obtain an acknowledgement should not defeat her right under the Scheme. 4. The petitioner would claim that she had in fact made an application prior to the marriage, but, due to her illiteracy, she had not obtained an acknowledgement and her failure to obtain an acknowledgement should not defeat her right under the Scheme. 4. Mr.J.Kalidas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would invite my attention to the fact that the petitioner had obtained income certificate and nativity certificate even during the month of May 2015 to impress upon the Court the genuineness of her claim that the application was presented before the 2nd respondent well before the marriage. He would submit that due to illiteracy, the petitioner did not obtain a proper acknowledgement from the 2nd respondent even though she filed an application before the date of marriage. Therefore, according to the counsel, the petitioner should have been taken to have made the application before the marriage and the online application made on 05.01.2016 should only be taken as a follow-up action. 5. Contending contra Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, learned Special Government Pleader, would submit that the Scheme mandates that such application for aid should be presented 40 days prior to the marriage and only in exceptional cases, the application can be accepted on a day prior to the marriage. G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 26.07.2011 clarifies this position and prohibits the Officer from receiving the application either on or after the date of marriage. She would also refer to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent pointing out that the 2nd respondent does not have a power to entertain the application after the date of marriage. 6. Mr.J.Kalidas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in K.Arasu Vs. Social Welfare Officer made in W.P.No.27214 of 2016 dated 04.08.2016, wherein it has been held that the Officer has got a power to condone the delay and receive the application. 7. I find that there is no reference to G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 26.07.2011 in the said judgment of this Court. However, this Court has held that being a Welfare Scheme the benefits should not be denied on technical grounds. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had made an application before the date of the marriage and she had failed to obtain an acknowledgement. However, this Court has held that being a Welfare Scheme the benefits should not be denied on technical grounds. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had made an application before the date of the marriage and she had failed to obtain an acknowledgement. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that from 01.04.2015 only online applications could be made for assistance under the Scheme. The petitioner has made a specific allegation that she had made an application to the 2nd respondent during May 2015 and there is no denial of the said specific allegation in the counter affidavit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has obtained the necessary certificates even in May 2015 would lend credence to her claim that her application was filed even in May 2015. 9. I am therefore of the opinion that being a Welfare Scheme, the respondents should not deny the benefits of such Welfare Scheme to the petitioner, more so, when it is not the case of the respondents that she is not entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. Hence, taking a sympathetic and lenient view and considering the fact that the Scheme itself is for providing financial assistance for marriage of girls belonging to economically weaker section, I am of the opinion that the Government should be more magnanimous in its approach rather than going by letter of law. 10. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to provide assistance to the petitioner under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Marriage Assistance Scheme, if the petitioner is found to be otherwise entitled to within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.