IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.A.NO.129 of 2008 & MP No.1 of 2008 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur. ... Appellant/Respondent Vs. M.Parasuraman ... Respondent/Petitioner Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.30957 of 2004. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the respondent herein made in D.Dis.5586/2003/A5, dated 1.10.2004 after calling for the recors and perusing the same and direct the respondent herein to issue permanent community certificate as Kattunaicken to the children of the petitioner. For Appellants : Mr.A.Arumugham Special Government Pleader For respondent : N.Anand Venkatesh JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.) The correctness of the order dated 13.07.2007 made in W.P.No.30957 of 2004 is put in issue in this appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the respondent herein moved the Court for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur, appellant herein dated 01.10.2004 and direct him to issue permanent community certificate of Kattunaicken to his children. The said claim was made by the writ petitioner on the basis that he belonged to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kattunaicken community, which is listed as one of the Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Tamil Nadu and the writ petitioner was also granted community certificate by the Tahsildar, Arakonam by his proceedings dated 11.12.1974 as he belongs to the Kattunaiken community and based on the said certificate, the writ petitioner has been appointed in the Railway and worked as Senior Technician. On 01.09.2003, the writ petitioner has submitted an application enclosing documents such as community certificate issued to him and the copy of the service record issued by the employer of the writ petitioner and the copy of the community certificate dated 21.07.1996 issued to the writ petitioner's brother's son to the respondent in order to support his claim that the children of the writ petitioner are entitled to community certificate that they belong to Kattunaicken community. However while considering the application for issuance of community certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur has directed the writ petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 29.09.2003. During enquiry, the writ petitioner submitted that Vellithankiupuram, hamalet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam Taluk was his native place and at present, he is residing at Periakuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk. He further submitted that he was working as Technician in Southern Railway and he came to Thiruvallur Taluk from his native during 1972 and his father was doing hunting and painting the vessels. He also submitted that he married one Malliga, who is the daughter of his uncle. One Shankar, who is the son of his wife's elder sister was also issued with the community certificate. The writ petitioner's daughter has been married to one Panneerselvam, S/o Arujunan and they are residing at Pichatur, Andhra pradesh and that his son-in- law has obtained Kattunaicken community certificate from the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu. As the writ petitioner has stated that his native was Vallithankupuram, hamlet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam Taluk, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet was addressed to ascertain the actual community of the writ petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, has reported that the petitioner's father and his predecessors are belong to "Vettaikara Sigari" community and hence, the writ petitioner Parasuraman also belongs to "Vettaikara Sigari" community. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, has rejected the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate to the writ petitioner's children that they belong to Kattunaiken community. That order is put in issue before the writ court, which by following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in JT 1997 (7) SC 660 (R.KANDASAMY VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MADRAS PORT TRUST) has observed that since the writ petitioner's community certificate has not been cancelled, the siblings have also to be issued the community certificate as sought for by the writ petitioner and further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thiruvallur to issue community certificate to the writ petitioner's children as "Kattunaicken community" within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. That order is carried on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, revealed that the writ petitioner's predecessor belonged to Vettaikara Sigari community. Hence, the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate as Kattunaicken to his children is rejected. Even assuming that the order is not legally sustainable, for non furnishing of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, and non consideration of certain other evidence in favour of the writ petitioner, the Court should not have directed the authorities to grant community certificate. On the other hand, the Court should have directed the authorities to reconsider the issue by giving an opportunity. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, relying on the decision reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 524 (V.KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER, CHENNAI VS. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE ISSUING OFFICER AND PERSONAL ASSISTANT (GENERAL) TO THE COLLECTOR OF CHENNAI AND OTHERS), has contended that such a direction can very well be issued on the material available on record, which clearly shows that the authorities have committed a grave error in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate. When the father's certificate has not been cancelled and very much in force, the order directing the authority to issue community certificate to the children of the writ petitioner can well be legally sustainable. Much reliance has been placed in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Division Bench. 5. Heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before going into the facts of the case, we will make the legal position clear. The authorities cited before the Court cannot be taken as a binding precedent when there is one additional factor or a different factor is in existence from the facts of the cited case. If such factors are in existence, that makes a ocean of difference between the cited case and the case on hand. Usual reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 482 ( HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS & ANOTHER). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Even otherwise, in the cited case, it is not the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that where ever the father has the community certificate of his own stating that he belongs to a particular community, the son should be given the certificate of same community without any enquiry. 8. Here, on the basis of the statement made at the time of enquiry that the Writ petitioner is a native of Vellithankipuram, hamlet of Balakrishnapuram village, Arakonam, a responsible officer of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry and found that he does not belong to the community of Kattunaicken and he belongs to Vettaikara Sigari. Ofcourse it is true that the report has not been furnished to the writ petitioner, to rebut or place any other materials in support of his claim. The father's community certificate cannot be regarded as a sole criteria for granting the certificate. 9. On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that such a positive direction cannot be given, because often the persons, who do not belong to particular scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe community have come to the Court and obtain certain order with some materials, which virtually takes away the benefits granted to the real Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribe people to bring them on par with the other communities. Hence in the case of community certificate, particularly, seeking for the relief of the schedule caste and scheduled Tribe, the Court should be doubly cautious and should not venture to take the role of the authorities concerned and decide the issue, which is purely within the domain of experts in the field, who are more informed about the anthropology prevailing in the particular area. That is the reason the Supreme Court has given various direction in the case of KUM.MADHURI PATIL & ANOTHER VS. ADDL.COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT & OTHERS (1994 (6) SCC 241). 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the order impugned in the appeal has to be set aside and the same is set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur to give the writ petitioner an opportunity by placing materials with which reliance has been placed for non suiting him and also giving him an opportunity to rebut the same by placing relevant materials, which are available with the respondent/writ petitioner. The appellant also directed to complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. raa Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur. 1 cc to Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.70937 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR.71020 ck (co) dv/12.1. W.A.NO.129 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/