1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.1489 of 2011 M.Sharmilaji, W/o.A.Mohan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Madurai South, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Pa.Mu.10264/10/L, dated 20.12.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent, quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner and to her children M.Sobitha and M.Kishore. For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Srimathy For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate. ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 20.12.2010, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner seeking for the relief of issuance of community certificates to the effect that she and her children belong to "Malaivedan" community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Kottai Medu Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, and she belongs to "Malaivedan" Community, which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribe, adopted in the SC and ST Order. The Government of India, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 12.09.1977, through its Ministry of Home Affairs, had sent a communication intimating that "Malaivedan" community has been specified as a Scheduled Tribe throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, on 31.03.1979, the District Harijan Welfare Officer, had issued a circular to issue Community Certificate to the members of "Malaivedan" Community people as and when they seek for community certificate, after verification. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner sent an application to the second respondent seeking community certificate to her and to her two children, namely M.Shobitha and M.Kishore. A reminder letter was also sent on 07.04.2010. As no order was passed, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5028 of 2010, praying for a direction to the respondents to issue community certificates to the petitioner and to her children, as per her representation dated 09.03.2010. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 14.09.2010, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 09.03.2010, and pass orders on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication from the 2nd respondent, dated 15.10.2010, calling her to appear on 15.11.2010, with attested copy of the documents, namely (i)School Certificate; (ii)Parents SSLC Book and Transfer Certificate; (iii) Her Transfer Certificate and those who seek community certificate; (iv)Documents to show the community certificate at the the time of joining the elementary education; (v)If the parents of the petitioner are working in Government, then to produce copy of their service registers; (vi)Community certificate issued to the petitioner's parents; (vii)Any document showing the community of predecessors before 1950; and(viii)Family Card in evidence of place of residence. The petitioner submitted all the required documents. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner and being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent, without application of mind and without properly appreciating the documents and certificates produced by the petitioner, rejected the application of the petitioner. It is contented that the 2nd respondent has not assigned any valid reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner even produced the community certificates of her father as well as of her brother and those documents are still considered to be valid and the same were not cancelled by any competent authority. It is contended that in view of such undisputed facts, the second respondent ought to have placed reliance on those certificates but, on the other hand, declined to place reliance on those certificates and merely stated that it is not stated in those certificates the grounds on which and the documents under which those certificates came to be issued. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is also stated by the 2nd respondent that File Numbers are not mentioned in the said certificates. Learned counsel would submit that those reasons are not valid in the eye of law, as the community certificates need not contain file numbers, etc. as they were properly signed by the competent authority and bear the Seal of the Said Authority and the same show genuineness of those certificates. Learned counsel would further submit that the above said two valid and authenticated community certificates, issued to the petitioner's father and her brother, are sufficient for the 2nd respondent to issue community certificates to the petitioner and her children stating that they belong to "Malaivedan" Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. In support of her contention, the learned counsel would place on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in C.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam - 2010 (3) CTC 673; and T.V.Dharmalingam v. The Head of Department (Spl.Exams) & Others, reported in 2010 Writ L.R. 1123. 6. Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the community certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father does not contain the file number and the same does not speak about the reasons or the basis on which it came to be issued. Further, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that those certificates were issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, as before 11.11.1989, only Tahsildar was the competent authority to issue community certificates to Scheduled Tribe people. 7. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions projected by the counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order and other materials placed before this court. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner sought for the relief of issue of community certificate claiming that she belongs to "Malaivedan" Community, which is classified as Scheduled Tribe Community, on the basis of the Community Certificates issued to her father as well as to her brother. The fact remains that the petitioner has produced as many as 12 documents, including two community certificates issued in favour of her father as well as to her brother. The 2nd respondent declined to place reliance on those community certificates stating that prior to 11.11.1989, only Tahsildar was competent to issue such certificates to Scheduled Tribe community people and not the Deputy Tahsildar. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father and her brother were issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters), which makes no difference and such being the position, it cannot be stated that he was an incompetent authority to issue such certificates during such period. Further, the undisputed fact remains that till date the community certificates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 issued in favour of the petitioner's father and her brother have not been cancelled and as long as the same are considered to be valid and not cancelled by any competent authority, the petitioner is entitled to place reliance on such certificates. 9. Yet another reason assigned by the 2nd respondent for declining to place reliance on such certificates is that in those certificates it is not stated the basis on which and the documents upon which such certificates came to be issued and further those certificates do not contain the file numbers. It is needless to state that all the above reasons need not be assigned in the community certificate itself. It has to be presumed that such certificates were issued only after proper enquiry conducted by the concerned authority and if there is any doubt as to the genuineness of such certificates, it is only the Competent Committee, constituted for the said purpose, to go into such allegations, if any complaint is preferred against the issue of such community certificates. 10. The second respondent has also assigned one more reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner that the petitioner has not produced her parents' school certificate. Such reason is factually incorrect, as it is seen that even the petitioner has produced the transfer certificate issued in favour of her father, which contains the details about the community status of the petitioner's father that he belongs to "Malaivedan" community. 11. A Division Bench of this Court has repeatedly held in C.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub-collector, Mettur Dam - 2010 (3) CTC 673 and in T.V.Dharmalingam v. The Head of Department (Spl.Exames) & Another - 2010 Writ L.R. 113 that as long as the community certificates issued to the parents were not cancelled, the authorities cannot deny community certificates to their children. The Division Bench, in the decision in C.V.Kalaivanan v. The Sub- collector, Mettur Dam - 2010 (3) CTC 673, after referring to a number of decisions, including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Sumit Anand - 2005 (12) SCC 248, has held as under: "12.This Court in the decisions referred to above, has also taken a view that so long as the certificate issued to the father that he belongs to a community which is notified as Scheduled Tribe stands, his children are also entitled to the said Community Certificate." The view taken in the above said decision squarely applies to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, as already pointed out, the petitioner has strongly placed reliance on the community certificates issued to her father, which has not been cancelled till date by any competent authority. 12. In view of the above, we are constrained to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, in P.A.Mu.10264/10/L, dated 20.12.2010. Consequently, we direct the 2nd respondent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 issue community certificate to the petitioner and to her children, namely M.Shobitha and M.Kishore, stating that they belong to "Malivedan" Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collector's Office, Madurai South, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. +1 CC to Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, Advocate (SR.No.43295) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.43589) Order in W.P.(MD)No.1489/2011 Dated: 12.12.2011 gb NSV/27.12.11/5P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/