1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.11575 of 2011 1.Kaliyappan, S/o.Maruthan 2.S.Nagaraj, S/o.Subramani 3.N.Pushbam, W/o.Nagaraj 4.S.Parvathi, W/o.Selvam 5.S.Tamilselvam, S/o.Selvam 6.P.Murugan, S/o.Pandi 7.M.Murugayi, W/o.Murugan 8.P.Palanisamy, S/o.Perumal 9.P.Lakshmi, W/o.Palanisamy 10.K.Subramani, S/o.Karuppan 11.P.Moorthy, S/o.Palanisamy 12.K.Sakthi, S/o.Kalimuthu 13.R.Kaliyammal, W/o.Late Ramasamy 14.N.Eswari, W/o.Nagaraj 15.M.Kalimuthu, S/o.Mari 16.M.Nagaraj, S/o.Mari 17.A.Suresh, S/o.Arumugam 18.K.Lakshmi, W/o.Kalimuthu 19.M.Nagaraj, S/o.Murugan 20.N.Murugeshwari, W/o.Nataraj 21.Pappathi, W/o.(Late)Kumar 22.M.Palanisamy, S/o.Murugan 23.L.Palanisamy, S/o.Lakshmanan 24.P.Kavitha, W/o.Palanisamy 25.P.Mariyammal, W/o.Palanisamy 26.K.Perumal,S/o.Kandasamy 27.K.Saraswathi (minor), rep.by his father Kaliyappan 28.I.Amutha (Minor), rep.by his father Iyyappan 29.S.Jothika (minor), rep.by his father Selvam 30.S.Devi (Minor) rep.by his father Selvam 31.S.Ajith (minor), rep.by his father Selvam 32.M.Palanisamy, S/o.Mruguan 33.P.Peramkumar (minor), S/o.Palanisamy 34.S.Soundararaj, S/o.Subramani 35.P.Palanisamy, S/o.Perumal 36.K.Perumal, S/o.Kandasamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 37.P.Rajathi, W/o.Maruthan 38.M.Maruthan, S/o.Mariyappan 39.M.Murugan, S/o.Mariyappan 40.V.Palanisamy, S/o.Vellaiyan 41.M.Nataraj, S/o.Marimuthu 42.Marimuthu (minor), rep.by his father Palanisamy 43.P.Anand (minor, rep.by his father Palanisamy 44.P.Selvakumar (minor), rep.by his father Palanisamy 45.I.Umamakeshwari (minor), rep.by her father Iyappan 46.I.Sutha, W/o.Iyappan 47.I.Sureshkumar (minor), rep.by his father Iyyappan 48.S.Nagammal, W/o.Chaplin 49.S.Gandhi, W/o.Chaplin 50.P.Selvam, S/o.Perumal 51.M.Ramu, S/o.Mariyappan 52.R.Vijay, S/o.Ramu 53.V.Mariammal, W/o.Vijay ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare, Fort St.George, Chennai-5. 2.The District Collector, The Office of District Collector, Dindigul. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue community certificates to the petitioners as they belong to Hindu Paliyar-Scheduled Tribe Community within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of all the respondents. By mutual consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2.The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue community certificates to the petitioners as they belong to Hindu Paliyar-Scheduled Tribe Community, within a time frame. 3.The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Gandhi Nagar, Varamanathi Dam, Ayakudi, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District and they belong to Hindu Paliyar Caste, which is one of the Scheduled Tribe Communities in the State of Tamil Nadu. Their forefathers and the petitioners have been living in Palani Hills from time immemorial, depending on forests and as such their community is one of the primitive communities. They are mostly illiterate as they are dwelling in forest areas. As that of their forefathers, the members of the present generation of the petitioners' community have also not been issued with community certificates. By enacting special laws, the Government is giving several benefits, including education benefits, to the scheduled tribe community people as they are weaker community and also giving protection to them from exploitation and atrocities. As the petitioners were not issued with any community certificate, they were not able to get any benefit out of such beneficial legislations, as a result of which the children of the petitioners are very much affected and they were not able to get proper education. In such circumstances, the petitioners have approached the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to issue community certificates to scheduled tribes, seeking issuance of community certificates to the effect that they belong to Hindu-Palayar Scheduled Tribe Community by giving a representation, dated 09.11.2009. It is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of submission of such a representation as early as on 09.11.2009, the 3rd respondent has not considered the same and due to the enormous delay, the petitioners have been put into great hardship and irreparable loss. The petitioners also personally approached the 2nd and 3rd respondents on several times for issuance of community certificates to them without any further delay. Thereafter, the petitioners resorted to take action under the Right to Information Act seeking information as to what steps were taken by the authorities on the representation given by them for issuing community certificates. At last, the 3rd respondent has given replies dated 30.03.2010 and 21.04.2011 stating that the petitioners application has been sent to the Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, asking him to give a report, by conducting necessary enquiry on the same. Even after the said replies given by the 3rd respondent, till date the petitioners have not been issued with community certificates and their petition has not been considered is the grievance of the petitioners. Hence the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court with this petition with the aforesaid prayer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 4.Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioners belong to Hindu- Palayar Scheduled Tribe community and they are dwelling in forest areas and since they have not been issued with community certificates, they are not able to get the benefits out of the beneficial legislations enacted for the protection of the weaker community people, particularly scheduled tribes and their children are not able to get proper education and other facilities as a result of which they have been deprived of the benefits. It is contended that in view of the above said difficulties, the petitioners preferred representation on 09.11.2009 seeking for issuance of community certificates to the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to scheduled tribes. Learned counsel would further contend that in spite of such a representation, no action was taken on their representation, as a result of which the petitioners sought for information by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act and only thereafter communications dated 30.03.2010 and 21.04.2011 were received from the 3rd respondent intimating the petitioners that their representation has been sent to the Tahsildar, Palani, seeking for a report and after receiving report steps would be taken for issuance of community certificates to the petitioners. It is further contended that inspite of such reply given by the 3rd respondent as early as on 30.03.2010 and 21.04.2011, no action was taken and therefore the petitioners again made a representation on 03.07.2011 to the District Collector, Dindigul District, the 2nd respondent and till date no action was taken. 5.Learned Government Advocate would contend that steps have already been taken on the basis of the representation given by the petitioners and replies were also given by the 3rd respondent on 30.03.2010 and 21.04.2011 and the petition of the petitioners is under the consideration of the respondents. 6.We have carefully considered the contention put-forth by the counsel on either side and also perused the materials on record. 7.It is a very unfortunate matter wherein the petitioners, who are forest dwellers, though sought for the relief of issuance of community certificates by preferring an application as early as on 09.11.2009, they have not been issued with such community certificates till date. It is pertinent to note that due to inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in taking action on their application, the petitioners have sought for information under the Right to Information Act regarding the steps taken by the 3rd respondent for issuance of community certificates to them and accordingly information was furnished to them as per the communications dated 30.03.2010 and 21.04.2011, wherein the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to issue community certificates to scheduled tribes, has stated that the matter is under effective consideration and reports have been called for from the Tahsildar, Palani and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 after receiving such reports further steps would be taken to issue community certificates to the petitioners. But, unfortunately, even after the replies sent by them as early as in the months of March, 2010 and April, 2011, no further action was taken, which necessitated the petitioners to make a further representation on 13.07.2011 to the 2nd respondent. 8.Considering all these facts, this Court, without going into the merits of the application of the petitioners dated 09.11.2009 as well as the representation dated 13.07.2011 made to the 2nd respondent, is constrained to direct the 3rd respondent herein to conduct an enquiry in the manner known to law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and take immediate steps to dispose of the application submitted by petitioners on 09.11.2009, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Regsitrar To: 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Adi-Dravida and Tribal Welfare, Fort St.George, Chennai-5. 2.The District Collector, The Office of District Collector, Dindigul. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District +One CC to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.35177 gb rl/5 c- 1.11.2011 ORDER IN WP(MD)No.11575/2011 Dated:11.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/