Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2796 (MAD)

Vennila W/o. Late Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-07-04

N.ANAND VENKATESH

body2025
ORDER : N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned online rejection order of the third respondent and for a direction to the third respondent to issue Destitute Widow Certificate to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to avail the benefits under the Government Scheme for the destitute widows. 2. Heard Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.P.Aishwarya, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was married to one Suresh in the year 2014 and through the marriage, two children were born. The petitioner's husband was working in a private company on contract basis and the family was dependent upon the income earned by the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband suffered cancer and unfortunately, he died on 05.05.2025. The petitioner was facing financial crisis and hence, she was working as a typist in a private institute on a daily wage basis and was earning a small income and taking care of the family. The petitioner, therefore, approached the fourth respondent and made an application for widow certificate. The same was issued by the fourth respondent on 11.12.2021. The petitioner wanted to avail some of the welfare measures of the Government for destitute widow. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the third respondent on 26.07.2021 for issuance of destitute widow certificate. On receipt of the same, it was forwarded to the Revenue Inspector, who was directed to conduct an enquiry. The Revenue Inspector, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report dated 31.03.2023. For proper appreciation, the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector is extracted hereunder: 4. Pursuant to the above report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the third respondent, through an online order, rejected the claim made by the petitioner stating that the father of the petitioner is working in a private company and she is living with her in-laws and they are supporting her and she is also receiving support from her parents. That apart, the petitioner also owns a typewriting institute. 5. In the considered view of this Court, the online rejection order of the third respondent goes contrary to the report given by the Revenue Inspector. If the third respondent had any queries, the third respondent should have called the petitioner for an enquiry and clarified the same. That apart, the petitioner also owns a typewriting institute. 5. In the considered view of this Court, the online rejection order of the third respondent goes contrary to the report given by the Revenue Inspector. If the third respondent had any queries, the third respondent should have called the petitioner for an enquiry and clarified the same. Instead, the third respondent has indicated as if the petitioner is getting support from her parents as well as in-laws and she is also owning a typewriting institute. Even though in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that an enquiry was conducted, such an enquiry was with regard to the information collected by the third respondent and it is not an enquiry by calling upon the petitioner and seeking for clarification. Therefore, the impugned online rejection order of the third respondent suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and it also runs contrary to the earlier report filed by the Revenue Inspector on 31.03.2023. 6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned online rejection order of the third respondent is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the third respondent to deal with the application submitted by the petitioner in line with the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Pottaneri, dated 31.03.2023 and if any further clarification is required, the third respondent shall call the petitioner for enquiry and after getting clarification, a decision shall be taken. This process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.