1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 01.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD)No.934 of 2011 S.Kumaresan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli. 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 a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his order dated 09.11.2010 in O.Mu.Aa4/65528/2010, confirming the order dated 2.06.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.AA2/3701/2010 and quash the same and directing the 2nd respondent to issue the Community Certificate for the petitioner's wife M.Kanapathiammal and daughter K.Abirami as "Hindu-Kattunaicken Community" for the petitioner's application dated 10.09.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate. ORDER R.SUBBIAH,J This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of the first respondent dated 09.11.2010 confirming the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the second respondent and to direct the second respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's wife M.Kanapathiammal and daughter K.Abirami as Hindu-Kattunaicken community. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in Indian Rare Earths Limited as Trainee from 10.05.1990. He belongs to Hindu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Kattunaickan Community and also obtained community certificate from the Tahsildar, Sivagiri, dated 02.09.1986. On 10.09.2009, he made a representation to the second respondent to issue community certificate to his wife and daughter as Hindu-Kattunaicken community along with xerox copy of his community certificate. But his representation was rejected by the second respondent by his proceedings dated 02.06.2010 stating that the petitioner has not produced any supporting documents for issuing community certificates. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 22.09.2010 enclosing all necessary documents. The first respondent by his proceedings dated 09.11.2010 rejected his appeal stating that his wife and daughter do not belong to Hindu-Kattunaicken community. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed 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 Tahsildar, Sivagiri had issued community certificate dated 02.09.1986 to the petitioner as Hindu-kattunaicken community. The said document is still in force, 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 wife and daughter as Hindu-Kattunaicken community. 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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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". 5.The said decision 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. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.11.2010 confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 02.06.2010 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue community certificate to the petitioner's wife and daughter as Hindu- kattunaicken community, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 5956 order made in Writ Petition (MD)No.934 of 2011 sms SMA/04.03.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/