1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD) No.1402 of 2011 M.Sangiliandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi. Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.A2/3811/2010 dated 26.04.2010 and consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.O.Mu.A2/6241/2010 dated 16.07.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue community certificate in favour of the petitioner's children namely Gurusamy, Seethalakshmi and Eswari. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate. ORDER R.SUBBIAH,J. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.A2/3811/2010 dated 26.04.2010 and consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.O.Mu.A2/6241/2010, dated 16.07.2010 and consequently to direct the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner's children namely, Gurusamy, Seethalakshmi and Eswari as Kattunayakkan community. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Kattunayakkan community. The petitioner has studied upto 8th standard and his father was working as Sweeper in the Puliyankudi Municipality. After the demise of his father, the petitioner got appointment as Sweeper in the Puliyankudi Municipality in the year 1996 and still he is working as Sweeper in the Puliyankudi Municipality. He had been issued with community certificate as Hindu Kattunayakkan S.T community as early as on 03.07.1990 by the Revenue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti. The school records and service register of the petitioner show that he belongs to Hindu Kattunayakkan community. Whileso, the petitioner applied for the community certificate for his children before the second respondent on 24.01.2008. The Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector have enquired with regard to the claim of the petitioner on the instruction of the second respondent and submitted a report positively through Tahsildar, Sivagiri. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 26.04.2010. Hence, the petitioner made another representation dated 28.06.2010 before the first respondent. The same was forwarded to the second respondent and the second respondent once again has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 16.07.2010. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4.It is seen from the records that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti had issued community certificate dated 03.07.19990 to the petitioner as Hindu-Kattunayakkan community. The said certificate is still in force and the learned Government Advocate on instructions submitted that the certificate of the petitioner is not cancelled. So long as the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled, we do not find any reason to reject the claim of the petitioner requesting to issue the community certificate in favour of his children as Hindu- Kattunaickan community. 5.The issue involved in this appeal is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.Kandasamy Vs.Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 505. In the said Judgment, in Paragraph No.6, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "6.In our opinion, the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a certificate is not cancelled. The authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer." 6.The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the similar set of facts in the case of T.V.Dharmalingam Vs.The Head of Department (Spl.Exams) & others reported in 2010 W.L.R 1123 has held in paragraphs 16 to 18 as follows: "16.One of the documents relied on by the petitioner is the copy of the sale deed of the year 1958 bearing Document No.3318/1958 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Tirupattur, in which the purchaser Lingammal is shown as belonging to "Kurumans" community. The said Lingammal is the senior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 paternal uncle's wife of the petitioner. Similarly, there are other registered documents, like sale deed, etc., showing the community of the petitioner and his relatives as "kurumans". The petitioner was given a community Certificate stating that he belongs to "Hindu Kurumans" community. His elder brother and his children were also issued with Community certificate to the very same effect. Those documents have not been cancelled and are in force. We are of the considered view the primary documents relied on by the petitioner, which are of more evidentiary value and has rejected the claim of the petitioner on untenable grounds. The finding of the fourth respondent in the impugned order that the petitioner does not belong to "Hindu Kurumans" community is perverse and liable to be rejected. 17.In the facts and circumstances of the case following the ratio of the decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court, we are inclined to give a positive direction to the fourth respondent to issue Community Certificate to the children of the petitioner as belonging to "Hindu Kurumans" community. 18.In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the fourth respondent, dated 15.02.2010, is set aside and the fourth respondent is directed to issue Community Certificates to the children of the petitioner, namely, (1) D.Gowtham Raj, (2)D.Harish and (3)D.Sudha that they belong to "Hindu Kurumans" community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2010 is closed". 7.The Supreme Court in the case of Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6173 ; 2009 (10) SCC 268, held that the authorities are bound to consider the Community Certificate issued to near relatives of the claimant. In Paragraph No.16, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "16.In support of his claim that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, the appellant had produced before the Scrutiny Committee four xerox copies of the caste certificate issued by Talathi of the village and caste certificate dated 25-11-2002 issued by CEO, Nagar Parishad. The perusal of the record shows that these documents were arbitrarily and lightly brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by observing that the documents were issued in a casual manner and that too on the personal knowledge without verifying the facts. It is an admitted position that none of the officers, who had issued the certificates concerned, was either summoned or examined by the Scrutiny Committee. The affidavit filed by Dr. L.N. Datte, the nephew of the appellant, and the caste certificate issued to the son of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 the appellant would indicate that near relatives of the appellant have been always treated by the authorities as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the appellant that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe could not have been negatived on the ground that he had no basic knowledge of traits, characteristics, customs and culture, etc. of Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe or that he failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel and confiscate the caste certificate issued to the appellant is based on irrelevant considerations and suffers from the vice of non-consideration of relevant factors. Therefore, the said decision as well as the decision of the High Court, confirming the said decision, are liable to be set aside." 8.In the case of Rajeswari v. The District Collector, Nellai Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli reported in 2000 (I) MLJ 267, His Lordship P.Sathasivam [as he then was], considered the said issue and took the same view. In Paragraph No.16, it is held as follows:- "16. With reference to the existence of valid community certificate of the father of the delinquent and in the absence of any change of circumstance, S.S.Subramani, J, in S.Natarajan vs. District Collector, Tuticorin, AIR 1999 Mad 241, has held that, "24. In this case, there is no change of circumstances. The Community Certificate was found to be true and genuine by the District Collector in 1988 and that has become final. The only circumstances now is petitioner asked for Community Certificate for his children. That will not be a ground for questioning his community certificate. There is no change of circumstances as on date." In our case also, I have already stated that, father of the petitioner is having valid community certificate and he was employed in the Income – Tax Department based on the said Certificate. In such circumstance, while agreeing with the view expressed by S.S.Subramani, J., I hold that the first respondent is not justified in doubting the community of the petitioner. 9.The said decisions of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, we are of the view that when the primary document namely the community certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is still in force which has more evidentiary value, there is no reason to reject the claim of the petitioner's children. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, dated 26.04.2010 and 16.07.2010 are quashed and the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 is directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner's children namely, Gurusamy, Seethalakshmi and Eswari as Hindu- Kattunayakkan community, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. +1cc to Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.9587 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.9346 Order in W.P.(MD) No.1402 of 2011 21.02.2011 SMS SMA/23.03.2011/5C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/