IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25713 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TELLESMON P.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 28, PALLIKKUNNEL (H), MELUKAVUMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MELUKAVU, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. KIRTHADS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25713 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who claims that he belongs to Malai Arayan Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk. In Ext.P6, the Tahsildar has certified that the petitioner is the second generation son of an inter married couple and therefore he cannot be treated as a member of the Malai Arayan Community. 2. Under section 12 of the Kerala (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, an appeal lies from the decision of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. In my opinion as the caste status of the petitioner, who is admittedly the son of an inter caste married couple, requires a detailed enquiry, it is desirable that the petitioner should move the appellate authority by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahsildar has evidently not passed an order rejecting the petitioner's request but has only issued a certificate to the effect that he belongs to the general category. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the misconception that Ext.P6 is not an order but a certificate he did not W.P.(C) No. 25713/09 2 invoke the appellate remedy. On going through Ext.P6, the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar, I find that the said submission merits acceptance. Ordinarily in the absence of an order a citizen cannot be expected to proceed on the basis that the certificate issued to him is an order and invoke the appellate remedy available to him. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, treating Ext.P6 as an order, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall entertain the appeal as one filed in time and pass orders thereon within two months thereafter, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall after orders are passed on the appeal, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner expeditiously. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vps W.P.(C) No. 25713/09 3