Madras High Court
P.Maheswari vs The Secretary To Government on 20 June, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.8424 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6360, 6361 and 17786 of 2021
P.Maheswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner/Director of
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Vigilance Committee on
Genuineness of Community Certificate,
Headed by the District Collector,
Theni District.
4.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
Office of the District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
Tribal Welfare Officer,
Theni District.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Theni District.
6.Tmt.Chinnathai ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned order of the fifth respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.
1233/2021/Adi5 dated 09.04.2021 and quash the same and consequently,
forbear the respondents herein and their men, officials, subordinates from
in any manner interfering with the petitioner's right to function as Village
Panchayat President of G.Kallupatti Village Panchayat under the fifth
respondent herein.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Gandhi
For R-1 to R-5 :Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R-6 :Mr.R.Karunanidhi
***
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents
1 to 5 and Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel for the sixth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
2. The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order
passed by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.1233/2021/Adi5, dated
09.04.2021 to forbear the respondents from in any manner interfering
with the petitioner's right to function as Village Panchayat President of
G.Kallupatti Village Panchayat under the fifth respondent herein.
3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ
petition are as follows:
The petitioner states that she belongs to Hindu Kuravan
Community which comes under Schedule Caste community. Though it is
admitted that the petitioner's application to get her community status as
she belongs to Hindu Kuravan Community was earlier dismissed, it is
stated that the petitioner's father, husband and her son, were given
community certificate as they belong to Hindu Kuravan Community. It
was thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the
Tahsildar and she was given community certificate. Later, on the basis
of a representation submitted by a person, who has contested the election
as a rival candidate, who is the sixth respondent herein, the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
respondent issued a show-cause notice, dated 08.02.2021, stating that an
enquiry is contemplated regarding the community status of the petitioner.
The respondents 4 and 5, appeared to have formed an opinion that the
petitioner belongs to Hindu Uppiliyar community, which comes under
the Backward Class and does not belong to Hindu Kuravan Community.
It was thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the District
Collector. From the impugned order passed by the fifth respondent, it is
seen that a decision was taken by the District Collector based on the
report of the Anthropologist, dated 10.03.2021 and the enquiry report of
the Sub-Collector.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon
G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department,
dated 12.09.2007 and the subsequent Government Order in
G.O(Ms).No.106 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department,
dated 15.10.2012. Vide G.O(2D)No.108, dated 12.09.2007, issued by the
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, the Government based on
the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumari Madhiri Patil
and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
others, issued certain directions after constitution of District Level
Vigilance Committee at District level and State Level Scrutiny
Committee at State level, to verify the genuineness of the community
certificate issued to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
5. As per the said G.O., the District Level Vigilance
Committee, should consist of District Collector as a Chairman and
District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer as a Member Secretary
and an Anthropologist as a Member, to scrutinize the genuineness of the
community certificates issued as Scheduled Caste. As against the order
of District Level Vigilance Committee, the remedy available to the
aggrieved person is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. As regards the function of District Level Vigilance
Committee and State Level Scrutiny Committee, the annexure to
G.O.(2D) No.108, dated 12.09.2007, indicates the following procedure:
“2. The District Level Vigilance Committee /
State Level Scrutiny Committee concerned, on receipt of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
Petition / Application shall call for a report from the
concerned local revenue authority by whom such
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe certificate was issued.
On receipt of the report the District Level Vigilance
Committee / State Level Scrutiny Committee, if found the
claim for social status to be “not genuine” or “doubtful” or
spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed / issued, the
committee concerned should issue a show cause notice
supplying a copy of the report of the verification authority to
the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement
due or through the head of the concerned educational
institution in which the candidate is studying or employed.
The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if
any would be made within two weeks from the date of the
receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more
than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In
case the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and
claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the committee
on receipt of such representation reply shall convene the
committee and the committee shall give reasonable
opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all
evidence in support of their claim. If any person or
association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce
evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the
Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient
and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by
the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order
with brief reasons in support thereof.
3. In case the report is in favour of the candidate
and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be
taken except where the report or the particulars given are
procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in
the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para
2 be followed.
4. Notice contemplated in para 2 should be issued
to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to
appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their
support of the claim for the social status certificates.
5. The enquiry should be completed as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
expeditiously as possible preferably by day to day
proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If
after inquiry, the caste scrutiny committee finds the claim to
be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling
the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should
communicate within one month from the date of the
conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the
parent / guardian and the applicant.
6. The committee should ensure that in case, the
certificate obtained or social status claimed found to be false,
the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for
making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction
and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an
offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective
posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to
any local body, legislature or the Parliament.
7. As soon as the finding is recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was
false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it
should be communicated to the concerned educational
institution or the appointing authority by registered post with
acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the
admission or the appointment. The principal etc. of the
educational institution responsible for making the admission
or the appointing authority should cancel the admission/
appointment without any further notice to the candidate and
debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a
post..”
7. The Government thereafter issued G.O.(Ms)No.106 dated
15.10.2012, giving further directions which warranted pursuant to the
clarifications issued by this Court in a batch of writ petitions. As per
G.O(Ms)No.106, dated 15.10.2012, the Regional Vigilance Cells, to
verify the community status of the persons belonging to Scheduled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Vigilance Cells are constituted for
four regions to cover all the Districts in the State. The Vigilance Cell of
each region was expected to function with three staffs namely the Senior
Deputy Superintendent of Police, jurisdictional Inspector of Police and
Police Constable.
8. On the application in relation to scrutinisation or verification
of the community certificate, the District Level Vigilance Committee or
the State Level Scrutiny Committee, is required to refer the case of the
individual to the respective Vigilance Cell where the community
certificate was issued to the individual for verification of the community
status of the individual. On receipt of reference from the District Level
Vigilance Committee or State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Inspector of
the Vigilance Cell should go to the local place of the residence and the
original place from which the candidates hails in case of migration and
should personally verify and collect all the facts regarding social status
claimed by the candidate or by the parent or guardian as the case may be.
After the enquiry as contemplated under the second G.O., a report should
be submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the District Level Vigilance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
Committee or the State Level Scrutiny Committee together with all
particulars as envisaged in the said G.O. It was thereafter, on receipt of
the report from the Vigilance Officer, further enquiry should be
conducted and completed by the District Level Vigilance Committee, as
expeditiously as possible not exceeding two months and pass an order
and communicate the same to the individual, within a period of one
month from the date of conclusion of the proceedings.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the procedures as contemplated under G.O.2(D)No.108, dated
12.09.2007 read with G.O.(Ms).No.106, dated 15.10.2012, have not been
followed and the District Collector has decided the community status of
the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Anthropologist.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then
submitted that the petitioner has submitted her explanation in response
notice of enquiry and the District Collector has not even looked into the
specific contentions and the documents relied upon by the petitioner to
prove her community status.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also
pointed out that the conclusion of the District Collector is that no-one
belongs to Hindu Kuravan Community was residing in the village
G.Kallupatti in the census that was taken in the year 2011. However, the
information furnished to the petitioner pursuant to the application filed
by her under the RTI Act, reveals that several persons were given the
community certificate as they belong to Hindu Kuravan Community in
the area where the petitioner resides.
12. Leave alone the specific contentions raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the community status,
the fact that the District Collector has passed the impugned order without
following the procedure as contemplated under the two Government
Orders referred to above, is not in dispute.
13. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader
referred to the enquiry report of the Anthropologist and the findings of
the Sub-Collector in relation to the community status of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
14. This Court is of the view that the impugned order passed
by the fifth respondent is not sustainable. Hence, the matter has to be
remitted to the District Level Vigilance Committee, to consider the issue
afresh in relation to the community status of the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders following the procedure contemplated as per G.O.Ms.
(2D) 108, dated 12.09.2007 and G.O(Ms).No.106 dated 15.10.2012 both
issued by the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, in accordance
with law.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order passed by the fifth respondent, dated 09.04.2021, is set aside. The
District Level Vigilance Committee, Theni District, shall obtain a report
from the Vigilance Cell and on the basis of the report and following the
procedure prescribed in G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.09.2007 and the subsequent
Government Order in G.O(Ms).No.106 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
(CV-I) Department, dated 15.10.2012, fresh final order shall be passed,
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a report from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
the Vigilance Cell concerned. No Costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
20.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
pm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner/Director of Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Vigilance Committee on Genuineness of Community Certificate,
Headed by the District Collector,
Theni District.
4.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
Office of the District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer,
Tribal Welfare Officer, Theni District.
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Theni District.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8424 of 2021
S.SRIMATHY, J.
pm
W.P(MD)No.8424 of 2021
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
