1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 01..07..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Petition (MD)No.2530 of 2011 Aathimoolam Kanian, S/o. Ramayya Pulavar, 19/B, Theppakulam Street, Meakaram, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli. ..... Petitioner - Vs - 1. The District Collector,Tirunelveli. 2. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli. ....Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 24.11.2009 in NA.KA.A.4/25001/2008 - 2 issued by the first respondent and NA.KA.A.2/5347/2010 dated 02.06.2010 issued by the second respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to issue community certificate to the petitioner's Sons Kumarasami, Ramesh & Daughter Meenakshi within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner :: Mr. D. Saravanan For Respondents :: Mr. Aaiyiram K. Selvakumar Government Advocate O R D E R (Order of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 24.11.2009 and the order of the second respondent dated 02.06.2010 and for a further direction to the respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner's Sons Kumarasami, Ramesh and Daughter Meenakshi within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Hindu Kaniyan Community. The petitioner has made an application in the year 2005 to issue a community certificate in favour of his sons and daughter. He had also sent repeated reminders. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.02.2007, the second respondent rejected the prayer of the petitioner and the same was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, this writ petition. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, though in the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner is not belonging to Hindu Kaniyan Community and he belongs to Kaniyan Vellalar Community, the reasons for rejection have not been stated. Apart from this, according to him, the documents, which have been furnished by the petitioner were not at all considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 before passing the order, consequently, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. However, according to the learned Government Advocate, in the enquiry conducted, it came to light that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Kaniyan Community, consequently, his request has been rejected. Basing on this, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for and this writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and we have gone through the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned. 6. In the orders dated 24.11.2009 and 02.06.2010, it is stated that the petitioner is not belonging to Hindu Kaniyan Community. Though the said finding has been given basing on the Enquiry conducted, unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer's Report has not been furnished to the petitioner. Apart from this, when the request of the petitioner is rejected, it is the duty of the Authorities concerned to say the reasons as to why they are not accepting the stand of the petitioner. However, no reason whatsoever has been given. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the respondents dated 24.11.2009 and 02.06.2010 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner is at liberty to submit his reply for the same and after receipt of the petitioner's reply, the respondents are directed to pass orders giving the reasons either for accepting the stand of the petitioner or for rejecting the stand of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above said direction, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The District Collector,Tirunelveli. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 21330 W.P.(MD)No.2530 of 2011 dpn/- sma/4.8.2011/4c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/