1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.9478 of 2011 R.Sundararajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai, Madurai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.4127/11/L, dated 08.07.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue community certificate of Hindu Malaivedan Community to the petitioner's sons viz., S.Vinayagaraman and S.Anjaneyaraman within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi for M/s Hallmark Associates For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J) This writ petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.07.2011, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking for the relief of issue of community certificates for the sons of the petitioner stating that he belongs to Malaivedan Community which is recognized as Schedule Tribes Community. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner has already been issued with the community certificate stating that he belongs to Malaivedan community and such certificate was issued by the Tahsildar in-charge, Madurai South, by the community certificate, dated 19.05.1982. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that till date the said community certificate is not cancelled by any authority in the manner known to law. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner, being the father of the candidates, for whom he has sought for the relief of community certificate, is entitled to get the community certificate, stating that he also belongs to the same community viz., Malaivedan Community. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the decision of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 a Division Bench of this Court in C.V.Kalaidevan Vs. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District, reported in 2010 (3) CTC 673. 3.Heard Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent. It is contended that the second respondent has rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner, seeking for the relief of the issue of community certificate to his sons, by order dated 08.07.2011. It is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Madurai North, stating that the enquiry does not reveal that the petitioner is following the custom and convention of the Schedule Tribe community and he is not looking like a person belonging to the Schedule Tribe viz., Malaivedan Community. It is further contended that the petitioner has not submitted any document or any other certificate to substantiate his claim that he belongs and his sons also belong to Malaivedan community. It is submitted that as per the impugned order, the petitioner is not the native of Vathalagundu Village. 4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record, including the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.07.2011. 5.At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner, being the father of the candidates for whom the relief of community certificate was sought for, has produced his community certificate issued as early as on 19.05.1982 by the Tahsildar, Madurai City, stating that the petitioner belongs to Malaivedan Community, which is the Schedule Tribe Community. The fact remains that the said certificate is not yet cancelled by any authority in the manner known to law. Such being the position, the petitioner can very well place reliance on such certificate issued in his favour for seeking the relief of issue of community certificate for his sons viz., Vinayaka Raman and Anjaneya Raman. 6.It is pertinent to note that the perusal of the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 08.07.2011, reveals that the said order was passed mainly on the basis of the report submitted behind the back of the petitioner by the Tahsildar and the petitioner was not served with a copy of such report. In the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner has not produced any document, which is contrary to the fact that the petitioner has submitted his community certificate issued in his favour as early as on 19.05.1982. It is also seen that the petitioner has produced another certificate issued in favour of his brother, dated 14.07.1986, apart from producing the transfer certificate of his sons issued by the authority, dated 07.04.2005 and 06.09.2006. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not produced any document at all to substantiate his claim that he belongs to Malaivedan Community, which is recognized as Schedule Tribes Community. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in C.V.Kalaivanan Vs. The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District, reported in 2010 (3) CTC 673, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 paragraph Nos.6, 7 & 9 as hereunder: "6.It is not in dispute that Thiru. S.Vijayaragavan, father of the petitioner, and Tmt.K.S.Vijayalakshmi, mother of the petitioner, are in possession of the Community Certificates dated 25.10.1974 and 18.2.1975 respectively, issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur, stating that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. In fact, the brother of the petitioner Thiru C.V.Manivannan has sought for issuance of Community Certificate by application dated 18.4.1994 and his claim was rejected and he challenged the said order by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19956 of 1994 and this Court by Order dated 4.7.1995 set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration and again, the claim was rejected and it was challenged by filing another Writ Petition in W.P. No. 14821 of 1995 and this Court by Order dated 25.7.1996 allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the Community Certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father and mother as well as his paternal uncle's son Thiru. Ravichandran have not been cancelled and cannot be ignored and so long as those certificates stand, the petitioner therein is entitled for issuance of Community Certificate as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community and it was open to the Revenue Authorities to verify the correctness of the Community Certificates and based on the direction given in the Writ Petition, the Community Certificate, dated 27.9.1996, was issued to the elder brother of the petitioner. 7.Immediately thereafter, Application, dated 4.11.1996, was made seeking for issuance of Community Certificate to the petitioner. Along with the Application, a copy of the Community Certificate issued to the elder brother of the petitioner was enclosed as one of the documents. But, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 31.8.2000 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur dam, Salem District, and that order was challenged in a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 8256 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 21.7.2009 set aside the rejection order and remitted the case to the respondent by observing that the Issuing Authority shall take into consideration all the evidence, more particularly, the Community Certificate issued to the brother of the petitioner pursuant to the Order of this Court and it is an appropriate Certificate on the claim of the petitioner. For better appreciation, the relevant observation made by the Division Bench is extracted below: “ 13. We may observe that if the brother of the petitioner has been issued the certificate pursuant to the order of the Court, the respondent cannot disbelieve such Community Certificate.” 9.The Community Certificates of the parents of the pe- titioner came up for consideration before this Court in the ear- lier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner's brother Thiru. C.V. Manivannan and this Court in the Order dated 25.7.1996 considered those documents and observed as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 "12. In my opinion, these are the main documents which re- quire consideration and the general letters stating that persons in Kolathur village belong to the ‘Konda Reddy Community’ cannot certainly be relied upon. After going through the above docu- ments, it is clear that in the earliest records, the petitioner's father had only been described as Reddiyar and there is no indi- cation to show that he belongs to the Konda Reddy Community. But the Community Certificates issued in favour of the petitioner's father and mother as well as one Ravichandran cannot be ignored lightly. They clearly say that they belong to ‘Konda Reddy’ Com- munity. Those certificates have not been cancelled so far. It is possible to explain the earliest records referring to the peti- tioner's father as only ‘Reddiyar’ by saying that during those days there was no necessity to mention the Tribe name as ‘Konda Reddy’. So long as those certificates stand it would be strange if the petitioner is denied the same status as ‘Konda Reddy’.” Having concluded thus, this Court issued specific direction to the respondent to issue a Community Certificate to the peti- tioner therein, namely, C.V. Manivannan, as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community. The respondent therein complied with the di- rection and issued the Community Certificate on 27.9.1996 to the brother of the petitioner. In the light of the observations made above, the finding of the respondent that the genuineness of the Community Certificates of the petitioner's parents is question- able, is perverse and erroneous and cannot be sustained." 8.The Division Bench also followed a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Bihar and others Vs. Sumit Anand, reported in 2005 (12) SCC 248 and observed as hereunder: "The Supreme Court in the decision in State of Bihar's case (stated supra) has concluded that the family members were granted certificates that they belong to a particular community and the applicant therein was entitled to issuance of the same Caste Certificate. For better appreciation, the relevant observations are extracted below: “6. We have perused the findings recorded by the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High Court. In view of the fact that the respondent's father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been granted the certificate certifying that they belong to the “Gond” community, we see no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled to issuance of the Caste Certificate.” 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. 13. We also of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled for issuance of Community Certificate as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community on the basis of the Community Certificates issued to his parents and his brother, which are in force. Following the ratio of the decisions, referred to above, we are inclined to give a positive direction to the respondent herein to issue Community Certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Konda Reddy’ Community." 9.The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra is also supported by the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra. Therefore, the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also the petitioner has produced his certificate, as well as the certificate issued in favour of his brother, apart from producing school transfer certificates to substantiate his claim that his sons are also belonging to the same community viz., Malaivedan community, comes under the Schedule Tribes Community. As long as the said certificates issued in favour of the petitioner stands valid and the same is not cancelled by any competent authority in the manner known to law, the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of issue of community certificate in favour of his sons. 10.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, dated 08.07.2011, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the second respondent herein is directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner's sons, on the basis of the community certificate issued in his and his brother's favour, dated 19.05.1982 & 14.07.1986 respectively, stating that they belong to Malaivedan Community, which is recognized as Schedule Tribes community. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, Madurai District. 3.The Thasildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai, Madurai District. Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. gcg Order in W.P.(MD)No.9478 of 2011 16.12.2011 TR : 10.01.2012: 5p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/