IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30694 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.RUGMANI, D/O.BALAN, KILLINNIYIL HOUSE VADAKKETHARA, PAZHAYANNUR PO., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE-17. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30694/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF PAGE NO.1 OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/05/1989 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, ALATHUR. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/03/1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK TOGETHER WITH ENDORSEMENT DATED 11/03/1997 MADE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKETHARA. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP.NO.5172/2001 DATED 19/11/2004. P6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.21443/G2/97/SCSTDD DATED 18/09/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT NO.V.12/2000 DATED 03/09/2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19/06/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.21443/G2/97/SCSTDD DATED 19/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 30694 of 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i. a writ of certiorari quashing / setting aside Exts. P6, P7 and P9. ii. a writ of mandamus to respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner by conducting a fresh inquiry giving full opportunity to the petitioner to participate int eh inquiry and to take a fresh decision on the community / caste status of the petitioner. iii. a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to issue orders declaring that the petitioner belongs to Hind - Thandan community and iv. such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing O.P. 5172 of 2001, which culminated in Ext. P5 judgment, whereby the relief sought for therein was declined, however, with liberty to have the matter considered by the Scrutiny Committee and to take a decision with regard to the case status of the petitioner. It was accordingly that the matter was pursued, however leading to Ext. P9 order passed by W.P. (C) No. 30694 of 2008 : 2 : the second respondent / Scrutiny Committee dated 19.09.2005, which stands against the petitioner. 3. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 20.10.2008, the following interim order was passed. “petitioner to file an affidavit explaining what was the disability which prevented her from approaching this Court mounting a challenge against Ext. P9 which is of the year 2005. Post when moved again”. 4. Now, the petitioner, without complying with the above direction and also without any explanation has simply filed an 'urgent memo' for consideration of this writ petition. This Court does not find any reason to call for interference in this writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly, holding that the cause of action if any, has become stale. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge