1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.11833 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 S.Mariappan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Thasildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/14531/2011 dated 30.09.2011 on the file of Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.S.Venkatesh, Government Pleader. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/14531/2011 dated 30.09.2011 on the file of the Respondent No.3 and consequently directing the Respondents to issue community certificate to the petitioner within a time frame. 2.Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 3.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would put-forward two fold contentions, namely (i) while considering the representation of the petitioner for issuing community certificate, the 3rd respondent has not considered the community certificates issued to the relatives of the petitioner to show that he belongs to Hindu- Paraiyan, a scheduled case community; and (ii) the conversion will not automatically change the persons community and such position was settled by a Division Bench of this Court in M.Ramasankar vs. District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirunelveli District, reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 138, which decision was rendered after following the decision of the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. - (2005) 1 MLJ 79, in assailing the order of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, on the above two grounds the learned counsel seeks for quashing the impugned order. 4.Heard Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the counsel either side and perused the materials available on record. 6.According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu-Paraiyan, which is a scheduled caste community and seeking a community certificate to the said effect, he made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 19.09.2011, with supporting documents but, the 3rd respondent, without considering his case in proper perspective has rejected his claim for community certificate and hence he is before this Court. 7.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the request of the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that he is a converted Christian and following Christianity. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person does not even cease to be a scheduled caste automatically even on his conversion to another religion and in support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in (2009) 1 MLJ 145 cited supra, wherein this Court, rendered the decision after following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. - (2005) 1 MLJ 79. Paragraph 16 of the judgment reads as under: "16.At this juncture, we also feel it apt to quote a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. AIR 2005 SC 1622 : (2005) 10 SCC 465 : 2005-1- LLJ-429 : (2005) 1 MLJ 79, wherein it has been held as follows at p.99 of MLJ: "96.Scheduled Caste is not a caste in terms of its definition as contained in Article 366(24) of the Constitution. They also brought within the purview of the said ctegory by reason of their abysmal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 backwardness. Scheduled Caste consists of not oly the people who belong to some backward caste but also race or tribe or part of or groups within caste, races or tribes. They are not merely backward but backwardmost. A person does not even cease to be a Scheduled Caste automatically even on his conversion to another religion." (emphasis supplied by us) In such circumstances, in the light of the above judgment of this Court, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 3rd respondent. 8.Regarding the other contention that the 3rd respondent had failed to take into account the community certificates issued to the relatives of the petitioner, we are of the view that when a person produces certain documents in respect of his claim, it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to consider its relevancy to the claim of the person who approaches them. It is the contention of the petitioner that he produced community certificates issued to his relatives in respect of his claim, but the same were not considered by the 3rd respondent. As stated earlier, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the 3rd respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he practices Christianity and no where in the impugned order the 3rd respondent discusses about the community certificates produced by the petitioner. 9.Therefore, in the above circumstances, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration, after taking into account the judgment of this Court cited supra as well as the community certificates issued to the petitioner's relatives. 10.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration, by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put-forward his case and also in the light of the decision rendered by this Court cited supra, by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. - (2005) 1 MLJ 79.. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To: 1.The District Collector, District Collector Campus, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Thasildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District +One Cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.36230 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.36195 gb rl/6c – 10.11.2011 ORDER IN WP(MD)No.11833 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:19.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/