IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32164 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.DAVID,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.K.J.MATHAI,RESIDING AT DAVID VILLA, OLAYIL,THEVALLY P.O,KOLLAM,PIN- 691 009. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN- 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADAS, KOZHIKODE-17 3. TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 001. R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. P.K. SANTHAMMA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.32164/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF ADMISSION REGISTER OF NIDHIN P.DAVID EXT.P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF ADMISSION REGISTRATION OF NIKHIL P. DAVID EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MALA ARAYA CHRISTIAN FEDERATION DATED 14.6.2010 TO NIDHIN P.DAVID EXT.P2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MALA ARAYA CHRISTIAN FEDERATION DATED 14.6.2010 TO NIDHIN P.DAVID EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.2 DATED 18.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. EXT.P3(A): TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.2 DATED 18.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE E.C. MARY DAVID BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF VILLAGE OFFICER'S REPORT. EXT.P.4.(A): COPY OF VILLAGE OFFICER'S REPORT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR,PEERUMADE DATED 10.08.2010 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1.3142/2010 DATED 1.7.2011 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 29.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32164 of 2011 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner claims that he is a member of Christian Cheramer Community and that his wife belongs to Christian Malayaraya Community and a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala. He is claiming that his children are also brought up as members of the Scheduled Tribe Community. Petitioner made an application for caste certificate. It appears that on receipt of the application, the third respondent referred the matter to the second respondent and that, the second respondent issued Ext.P6 communication informing the third respondent that the request cannot be allowed. After obtaining a copy of Ext.P6, petitioner filed Ext.P7 before the first respondent describing itself as an appeal filed under Section 12 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. In this writ petition, W.P.(C) No.32164/2011 : 2 : what is sought for is an expeditious disposal of Ext.P7. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that the appeal lies only against the order of the competent authority rejecting the application for caste certificate. It is stated that Ext.P6 is only a communication issued by the second respondent to the third respondent and that Ext.P6 cannot be construed as an order of rejection. It is also pointed out that, if the third respondent passed an order of rejection, appeal under Section 12 of the Act lies to the District Collector and not to the first respondent. On that basis, it is contended that Ext.P7 appeal cannot be considered as a statutory one. 3. I have considered the submissions. Appeal has been provided under Section 12 of the Act and such appellate remedy is available against an order passed by the competent authority under Section 5(1) of the Act. In this case, the competent authority is the third respondent and against the W.P.(C) No.32164/2011 : 3 : orders passed by the third respondent, appeal should be filed before the District Collector. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent cannot be treated as statutory one to direct its consideration. 4. In so far as Ext.P6 is concerned, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, this is only a communication issued by the second respondent to the third respondent informing that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, fact remains that once the second respondent, being the specialised agency, makes its recommendations, it is bound to be accepted by the third respondent. In such a case, it will be too unrealistic to think that the third respondent will take a view different from that of the second respondent. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to think that the petitioner should be asked to wait for yet another order passed by the third respondent which will only cause delay in the matter. Therefore, I direct that Ext.P6 will be treated as an order of rejection issued by the third W.P.(C) No.32164/2011 : 4 : respondent and on that basis, the petitioner will be entitled to file an appeal under Section 12 of the Act. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh appeal against Ext.P6 before the District Collector, Kollam, as provided under Section 12 of the Act, in which event, the District Collector shall consider the appeal and pass orders on merits, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is directed that such appeal shall be filed, at any rate, within two weeks from today, in which event, the appeal will be disposed of, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/19/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge