1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.9534 of 2011 G.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, The Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. ... Respondent Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to furnish a copy of the preliminary report, as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.892 of 2004, dated 31.08.2004, pursuant to the representation, dated 22.02.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ilanchezian For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Government Advocate. ORDER [Order of the Court was made K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to furnish a copy of the preliminary report, as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.892 of 2004, dated 31.08.2004, pursuant to the representation, dated 22.02.2011. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking for a limited prayer of a direction to the respondent to furnish a copy of the preliminary report submitted by him, in respect of the community certificate of the petitioner, as per the direction of this Court dated 31.08.2004, issued in W.P.(MD)No.892 of 2004. It is contended that inspite of the order of this court giving specific direction, till date the said direction was not complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the issue is relating to the community status of the petitioner, the delay in furnishing the preliminary report, as per the directions of this court, has caused great hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner and as such he was constrained to approach this court once again with the present petition with the aforesaid relief. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of this court dated 31.08.2004, made in W.P.(MD)No.892 of 2004. 5.The fact remains that this Court had already passed an order as early as on 31.08.2004 in W.P.(MD)No.892 of 2004 directing the respondent to furnish a copy of the preliminary report. Paragraph No.5 of the said order reads as under: "5.In such circumstance, so long as the notice issued on behalf of the Committee on 18.8.2004 is a appropriate Committee constituted as directed by the Supreme Court in the above referred to judgment, there is no scope for interfering with the said proceedings. IN such circumstances, except stating that the petitioner may be furnished with the copy of the preliminary report of the second respondent, there is no scope for interfering with the proceedings initiated under the impugned notice. After furnishing the copy of the preliminary report, the Committee shall consider the request of the petitioner for granting reasonable time for making his objections to that report and also for substantiating his claim regarding his community status." Inspite of the above said order, the direction given by this court was not complied with. The matter is relating to the community status of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the delay in furnishing such a report has caused great hardship to him. 6.Considering such a situation and the circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent herein, to furnish a copy of the preliminary report prepared in respect of the community status of the petitioner and thereafter, the Committee shall consider the request of the petitioner for granting reasonable time for making his objections to the said report and for substantiating his claim regarding his community status. It is made clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: Revenue Divisional Officer, The Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.V.Ilenchezhiyan, Advocate, Sr.No.41214 gb ssk/10.12.2011 /3c -3p/- Order in W.P.(MD)No.9534/2011 Dated:23.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/