Madras High Court
L.Nagaraj vs The Tamil Nadu State Level ... on 4 November, 2022
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.26416 of 2022
L.Nagaraj ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingnar Maligai, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009, rep. By its Chairman
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny
Committee – II in Proceedings No.13282/CV-3/2019-21, dated 24.06.2022
on the file of the 1st respondent, quash the same and direct the 2nd
respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner and his children
viz. Kurichchan (ST) community.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraiswamy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Ms.C.Sangamithirai
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his request for grant
of community certificate, certifying him as a Scheduled Tribe belonging to
Hindu “Kurichchan” community. The petitioner's application was rejected
by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri on 25.02.2014. As against
the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District
Collector, Dharmapuri, which was rejected on 24.07.2019.
2.The petititioner filed an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny
Committee on 11.11.2019. The State Level Scrutiny Committee referred the
matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Scheduled Tribes /
Scheduled Castes Vigilance Cell, Salem Region and sought for a report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
The matter was also referred to an Anthropologist for carrying out the
enquiry as required by the procedure evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kumari Madhuri Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. The District Level Vigilance
Committee filed a report stating that petitioner's claim is not genuine.
However, the Anthropologist found that the petitioner belongs to the
Schedule Tribe community of “Kurichchan”.
3.In the appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the
petitioner essentially relied upon an order passed by the State Level
Scrutiny Committee on 24.03.2020, concluding that the claim of the
petitioner's own blood brother, L.Moorthi that he belongs to “Kurichchan”,
a Scheduled Tribe community is genuine. The State Level Scrutiny
Committee upon analysis of the material placed before it namely, report of
the District Vigilance Cell as well as the report of the Anthropologist, chose
to accept the report of the District Vigilance Cell and conclude that the
claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Hindu “Kurichchan”, a Scheduled
Trible Community is not genuine.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
4.Mr.S.Doraiswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that once the petitioner's brother has been
certified as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe community by the very
State Level Scrutiny Committee, the conclusion of the Committee otherwise
in the case of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
5.The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Vinoth Vs. The Sub-
Collector, Ranipettai reported in 2012 Writ L.R. 474 in support of his
submission that once close relatives has been favoured with the certificate
and on verification, the certificate is found to be genuine, the State Level
Scrutiny Committee has to be adopt the same view and it cannot reject the
claim of the petitioner.
6.The learned counsel would also draw our attention to the
judgment of another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in N.Kanagaraj
Vs. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Another dated
30.01.2018 in support of his contention. In State of Bihar Vs. Sumit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
Anand reported in (2005) 12 SCC 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
pointed that once the close relative has been favoured with a certificate, the
claim of the petitioner should not be rejected.
7.Contending contra, Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the State Level Scrutiny Commitee
would submit that the records relating to the other relatives of the petitioner,
which shows that they do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community
were nit placed before the committee when it considered the claim of the
brother of the petitioner. We have considered the rival submissions.
8.In fact, in Sub-paragraph 3 of Paragrpah 13 of the order
impugned in the Writ Petition, the State Level Scrutiny Committee has
pointed out that birth register entries of the year 1947, 1949 & 1951 and
school admission registers of the individual's father, brothers and sisters
were not placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. That by itself,
cannot be a ground to conclude that the report of the State Level Scrutiny
Committee erroneous. We find from the order passed by the State Level
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
Scrutiny Committee on 24.03.2020, the school admission records of the
petitioner his sisters and paternal counsins were produced and they were
considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The State Level
Scrutiny Committee when it considered the claim of the brother of the
petitioner had over ruled the report of the District Vigilance Cell and
concluded that the brother of the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe
Community.
9.Apart from the above, we also find a factual error in the
proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which states that the
Anthropologist has found that the petitioner does not belong to the
Scheduled Tribe community. This statement is factually erroneous. The
Anthropologist report that has been produced, it shows that the
Anthropologist has reached the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to
Scheduled Tribe community.
10.On an overall analysis of the documents that has been placed
before us and the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
Court, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the conclusions of
the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Once the certificate of the brother of
the petitioner has been verified and has been found to be genuine, the State
Level Scrutiny Committee, in our opinion, was not justified in coming to
different conclusion in the case of the petitioner.
11.We are constrained to allow the Writ Petition and quash the
order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. There will be a direction to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri to issue certificate to the
petitioner and his children to the effect that they belong to the
“Kurichchan”, a Schedule Tribe Community. Such certificate shall be
issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
04.11.2022
kkn
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
KKN
To:-
1.The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee – II,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Namakkal Kavingnar Maligai, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009, rep. By its Chairman
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
W.P.No.27215 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.26416 of 2022
04.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
