1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD) No.2030 of 2011 R.Srinivasan :Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. :Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to issue Hindu Malaikuravan Community Certificate to the School going children of the petitioner, namely S.Dhanasekaran, S.Thilagavathy and S.Maheswaran in the light of the judgment reported in 2010 WLR, page 1123, rendered by a Division Bench of Madras High Court. For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Nisha Banu For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J] This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue "Hindu Malaikuravan" Community Certificate to the School going children of the petitioner, namely S.Dhanasekaran, S.Thilagavathy and S.Maheswaran. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to "Malaikuravan Community", coming under Scheduled Tribes. When he applied to the 2nd respondent seeking community certificate, the 2nd respondent, by his order dated 17.06.2002, refused to give community certificate to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.133/2003. However, the said suit was dismissed on the ground that civil court has no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 jurisdiction to deal with the matter relating to community certificates. As his further attempts with the respondents failed, he filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5609/2009 and this Court, by order dated 02.11.2009, remanded the matter to the District Collector for passing appropriate orders, after holding an enquiry. Accordingly, after a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings No.Ni.Mu.(B3)/4220/2008, dated 08.03.2010. Pursuant to that, the petitioner applied for community certificate certificates to his school children. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even after completion of enquiry proceedings by the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar submitting his report to the 2nd respondent on 18.06.2010, the 2nd respondent is not issuing Community Certificates to his children as they belong to Hindu Malaikuravan Community. Hence he has come forward with this writ petition. 3.The orders passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5609/2009, dated 02.11.2009 and a copy of the community certificate issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, dated 08.03.2010, and other documents relating to the request made by the petitioner for issuance of community certificates to his children are filed in the typed set of papers. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was issued with a community certificate by the 2nd respondent himself on 08.03.2010, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the 2nd respondent is yet to pass orders on the Report submitted by the Tahsildar as early as on 18.05.2010. She further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that if parents/relatives were issued with Community Certificates, the children of that person cannot be denied Community Certificate on any ground, unless and until the Community Certificate issued to the parent/relative is cancelled. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in 2010 WLR 1123 - T.V.dharmalingam vs. The Head of Department (Spl.Exams) & others as well as in 2010 (3) CTC 673 - C.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub – Collector, Mettur Dam. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Advocate submitted that since the petitioner claims that he has been issued with a community certificate as he belongs to "Hindu Malaikuravan Community", the 2nd respondent will consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificates to his children based on the report said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar on 18.05.2010 and pass necessary orders following the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court on this issue. 6.We had also an occasion to consider similar issues in W.P. (MD).Nos.934 of 2011 and by order dated 01.02.2011, we have also passed similar orders directing the Competent Authorities to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner's wife and daughter therein based on the Community Certificate already issued to the sons and daughters of the person concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7.A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with similar set of facts in the case of T.V.Dharmalingam Vs.The Head of Department (Spl.Exams) & others reported in 2010 W.L.R 1123 in Paragraph Nos.16 to 18 held as follows: "16.One of the documents relied on by the petitioner is the copy of the sale deed of the year 1958 bearing Document No.3318/1958 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Tirupattur, in which the purchaser Lingammal is shown as belonging to "Kurumans" community. The said Lingammal is the senior paternal uncle's wife of the petitioner. Similarly, there are other registered documents, like sale deed, etc., showing the community of the petitioner and his relatives as "kurumans". The petitioner was given a community Certificate stating that he belongs to "Hindu Kurumans" community. His elder brother and his children were also issued with Community certificate to the very same effect. Those documents have not been cancelled and are in force. We are of the considered view the primary documents relied on by the petitioner, which are of more evidentiary value and has rejected the claim of the petitioner on untenable grounds. The finding of the fourth respondent in the impugned order that the petitioner does not belong to "Hindu Kurumans" community is perverse and liable to be rejected. 17.In the facts and circumstances of the case following the ratio of the decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court, we are inclined to give a positive direction to the fourth respondent to issue Community Certificate to the children of the petitioner as belonging to "Hindu Kurumans" community. 18.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 15.02.2010, is set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to issue Community Certificates to the children of the petitioner, namely, (1) D.Gowtham Raj, (2)D.Harish and (3)D.Sudha that they belong to "Hindu Kurumans" community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ". 8.The Supreme Court in the case of Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6173 : 2009 (10) SCC 268, held that the authorities are bound to consider the Community Certificate issued to near relatives of the claimant. In Paragraph No.16, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "16. In support of his claim that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, the appellant had produced before the Scrutiny Committee four xerox copies of the caste certificate issued by Talathi of the village and caste certificate dated 25-11-2002 issued by CEO, Nagar Parishad. The perusal of the record shows that these documents were arbitrarily and lightly brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by observing that the documents were issued in a casual manner and that too on the personal knowledge without verifying the facts. It is an admitted position that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 none of the officers, who had issued the certificates concerned, was either summoned or examined by the Scrutiny Committee. The affidavit filed by Dr. L.N. Datte, the nephew of the appellant, and the caste certificate issued to the son of the appellant would indicate that near relatives of the appellant have been always treated by the authorities as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the appellant that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe could not have been negatived on the ground that he had no basic knowledge of traits, characteristics, customs and culture, etc. of Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe or that he failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe.. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel and confiscate the caste certificate issued to the appellant is based on irrelevant considerations and suffers from the vice of non-consideration of relevant factors. Therefore, the said decision as well as the decision of the High Court, confirming the said decision, are liable to be set aside. 9.In the case of Rajeswari v. The District Collector, Nellai Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli reported in 2000 (I) MLJ 267, His Lordship P.Sathasivam [as he then was], considered the said issue and took the same view. In Paragraph No.16, it is held as follows:- "16. With reference to the existence of valid community certificate of the father of the delinquent and in the absence of any change of circumstance, S.S.Subramani, J, in S.Natarajan vs. District Collector, Tuticorin, AIR 1999 Mad 241, has held that, "24. In this case, there is no change of circumstances. The Community Certificate was found to be true and genuine by the District Collector in 1988 and that has become final. The only circumstances now is petitioner asked for Community Certificate for his children. That will not be a ground for questioning his community certificate. There is no change of circumstances as on date." In our case also, I have already stated that, father of the petitioner is having valid community certificate and he was employed in the Income – Tax Department based on the said Certificate. In such circumstance, while agreeing with the view expressed by S.S.Subramani, J., I hold that the first respondent is not justified in doubting the community of the petitioner." 10. In view of the above facts as well as issuance of Community Certificates to the petitioner, we are of the view that it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificates to his children, namely S.Dhanasekaran, S.Thilagavathy and S.Maheswaran and to pass orders based on the enquiry report said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar on 18.06.2010 and after satisfying with the genuineness of the community certificate, dated 08.03.2010, said to have been issued to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 11.In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of community certificates to his children, namely S.Dhanasekaran, S.Thilagavathy and S.Maheswaran, as observed above, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR gb To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. DM:2011::MARCH:11::: ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.2030 of 2011 Dated:28.02.2011 5P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/