Madras High Court
D.Ravikumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 August, 2023
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
and
WMP.No.22499 of 2023
D.Ravikumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai- 47.
...Respondent
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records of the respondent in its Na.Ka.No.2118/2023/E dated
25.07.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent
to issue community certificate to the petitioner's minor son R.Vishaanth,
to the effect that he belongs to the Hindu Konda Reddis community
(Scheduled Tribe).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Vijay Anand
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]
Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
25.07.2023, whereby, the respondent rejected the application of the
petitioner for issuance of community certificate citing the
G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10)
Department, dated 04.04.2006.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of
Chennai for the past 20 years and that his family members belong to
Konda Reddi community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community. The
petitioner's father was issued with the community certificate by the
Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, on 20.09.1977 and the petitioner was issued with
the community certificate by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO),
Kovilpatti, on 08.06.2001 after due verification and enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
3. It is the petitioner's further case that several members of his
family were issued with the community certificate by the
Tahsildar/RDO in Kovilpatti village. Thus, there was overwhelming
documentary evidence to substantiate that the petitioner and his family
belonged to Konda Reddi community which is a Scheduled Tribe
community. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was admitted
to a degree course in Anna University and at that time his certificate was
verified by the Collector, Tuticorin District and confirmed as genuine.
The petitioner is presently working in a private company in Chrompet,
Chennai.
4. While so, the petitioner applied for a community certificate for
his minor son R.Vishaanth, who is aged about 10 years, as he required
the same for admitting his son in Kendriya Vidyalaya School. As the
school mandated the production of community certificate, the petitioner
applied for the same on 30.03.2023 to the RDO, Tambaram, by enclosing
all supporting documentary evidences especially community certificate
of his father, himself, registered sale deeds and also community
certificates of his close relatives. The petitioner was given to understand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
that the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Thiruneermalai Village
and the Revenue Inspector of Pammal made local enquiries of the
communal status of the petitioner and his family members and the
enquiry made by the VAO and Revenue Inspector revealed that the
petitioner and his family members belonged to the Konda Reddi
community. While the petitioner was waiting for the issuance of the
community certificate, he was shocked to receive the impugned order
dated 25.07.2023 passed by the RDO rejecting his application citing
G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10)
Department, dated 04.04.2006. The petitioner left with no other remedy
filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
reliance placed by the respondent on G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare (ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006, for rejecting his
application was misconceived and erroneous. The learned counsel
further submitted that the Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court had
set aside several orders, where G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare (ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006 was invoked to reject
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
the community certificate. The petitioner's counsel further submitted
that in the light of the abundant documentary evidence produced before
the respondent, the respondent ought not to have rejected the
application on the specious ground that the petitioner ought to
approach the RDO, Kovilpatti, of the place of permanent abode of the
petitioner, for issuance of certificate.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied
on G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10)
Department, dated 04.04.2006 and submitted that the revenue authority
of one district was not competent to issue community certificate in
respect of persons belonging to another district place of permanent
abode. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there was
absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order, as it was passed in
confirmity with the G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
(ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the
materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
8. The crux of the matter is whether the respondent was justified in
invoking G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10)
Department, dated 04.04.2006, for rejecting the petitioner's application
for issuance of community certificate for his minor son.
9. The admitted facts are that the petitioner originally belong to
Kovilpatti village and his father was issued with the community
certificate by the Tahsildar, Kovilpatti on 20.09.1977. The petitioner was
also issued with the community certificate by the RDO, Kovilpatti on
08.06.2001. Therefore, from the community certificates of the petitioner
and his father, it is clear that the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddi
community (Scheduled Tribe). It is also undisputed that the petitioner
migrated to Chennai in search of a job and has been in Chennai for more
than 20 years and working in a private company. The petitioner
decided to admit his son in Kendriya Vidyalaya School. According to
the petitioner, the admission procedure mandated production of
community certificate and therefore, he applied for the same to the
RDO, Tambaram, respondent herein on 30.03.2023 for issuance of
community certificate by enclosing all documentary evidences like
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
community certificate of his father, himself and close relatives. The
petitioner also produced the sale deeds in support of his claim. The
Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Thiruneermalai Village, on
enquiry, found that the petitioner's family belonged to Konda Reddi
community (Scheduled Tribe). Even the report of the Revenue Inspector,
pammal revealed the same status. The aforesaid reports were also
forwarded to the respondent herein, but, in spite of the said reports and
documentary evidences filed by the petitioner, the respondent rejected
the application on the sole ground that the competent authority was the
RDO of the place of the petitioner's permanent abode.
10. From the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent
though referred to the community certificate issued to the petitioner by
the RDO Kovilpatti, nevertheless rejected the same citing
G.O.(Ms).No.61. The G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
(ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006 reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
11. From a reading of the above G.O., it is clear that the G.O was
issued for administrative convenience. The G.O. refers to the
Government of India's letters dated 22.03.1977 and 04.03.2005, to justify
the issuance of the G.O. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent
completely failed to note the context in which the Government of India
letters dated 23.03.1977 and 04.03.2005 were issued. The Government of
India letter dated 22.03.1977 was issued to clarify the legal position as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
regards the concept of residence. This clarification was necessitated
because it was felt that there ought to be interstate area restriction for
the purpose of community certificate. In other words, it was felt that a
person migrating to another State, could not claim the benefit of
reservation in the migrated State, even though the caste / Tribe was
notified in the Presidential notification of the migrated State. This would
be clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Action
Committee Case (1994 (5) SCC 244) where the Government of India
letter dated 22.03.1977 and other communication of Government of
India were considered to hold that a person would be entitled to benefit
of reservation in the state of his origin and not in the migrated state even
if his caste was notified in the migrated State. It is further pertinent to
note here that in the said letter, emphasis on the Revenue Authorities of
the locality to which the individual belonged was made with a purpose,
the purpose being that the Revenue Authority of the locality to which
the person belonged would have access to the revenue records. The
respondents failed to note that the interstate area restriction cannot be
applied to intrastate areas, because, a legally issued caste certificate is
valid throughout the state. Therefore, in the guise of administrative
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
convenience, respondent cannot inconvenience the public, moreso, in
the matter of constitutional privileges.
12. In the case on hand, it is not, as if the community certificate
was being issued for the first time. As already stated abundant
documentary evidences in the form of community certificates of the
petitioner's father, petitioner, his close relatives and ancestral sale deeds
were enclosed for claiming the communal status. If there was any doubt
on the veracity of the said documents, then the respondent was at liberty
to invoke G.O(Ms)No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-1)
Department, dated 15.10.2012.
13. Similar orders were challenged before this Court, in a number
of writ petitions and this Court held that reliance on the G.O. was
unjustified. The following judgments in this regard may be referred to.
In the order dated 10.07.2017 in W.P.No.17355 to 17357 of 2017 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in Minor C.Muhil and two others V.
The District Collector, Villupuram District and another, in Paragraph no.10,
it was observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 11/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
“10.A perusal of paragraph no.3 of G.O.Ms.No.61, Adi
Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (ADW-10) Department dated
04.04.2005 would indicate that the place of permanent abode
have been clarified and it is the categorical stand of the
grandfather of the writ petitioners in the writ petitions
(deponent of the affidavits in the writ petitions) that his
permanent residence is at Palayapalapattu Village,
Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District and the 2nd
Respondent has expressed the view that once the place of
permanent abode is shifted, the concerned persons are not
entitled for Community Certificates. However, this Court is of
the view that the said reason is unsustainable for the reason that
freedom of movement is enshrined and guaranteed in the
Constitution of India and one cannot except a person to reside
in his permanent abode for the purpose of eking out his
livelihood and if that view is taken, it also belies logic and
common sense and it would also introduce a new clarification /
criteria, which is not contemplated under the Government
Order. It is an undisputed fact that the deponent of affidavits –
grandfather of the minor petitioners has been issued with a
Community Certificate and vide proceedings of the Tamilnadu
State Level Scrutiny Committee in No.29080/CV-II/2008 dated
01.03.2010, the same was found to be genuine.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 12/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
The said Judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Elavarasi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others.
and in W.P.No. 17929 of 2017 vide Order dated 14.07.2017. In the case of
Minor Anusruthi vs The District Collector and another, it was held as
follows:
“7. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that for the
purpose of getting a Scheduled Tribe Community Certificate,
one cannot be expected to remain in the permanent place of
abode for the reason that to eke out the livelihood, it is open to
the concerned person to shift the place of residence also and such
a right is also guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution
of India.”
14. The Madurai Bench of this Court in an Order dated 21.06.2023
under similar circumstances was pleased to set aside the impugned
order by imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State. Considering that this
Court has time and again held that G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare (ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006 cannot be
invoked for driving the petitioner to apply for community certificate in
his place of permanent abode we set aside the impugned order.
15. We find that inspite of the above Division Bench judgments,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 13/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
the respondent continues to invoke G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 04.04.2006 to
harass the applicants for issuance of community certificate.
16. We issue the following directions.
i) Whenever an application is made for issuance of community
certificate along with supporting documents, the RDO shall
satisfy himself on the veracity of the documents and if satisfied
shall issue the community certificate without driving the
applicant to the competent authority of the applicant's
permanent place of abode.
ii)In case, the RDO entertains any doubt on the veracity of the
documents filed by the applicant, he shall follow the procedure
contemplated in G.O.(Ms).No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare (CV-1) Department, dated 15.10.2012 to ascertain the
truth.
iii)The Government shall take steps to sensitize the Revenue
officials on the importance of community certificate and its value
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 14/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
to the applicants.
iv)It is seen that the officials in a mechanical manner and without
reference to the legal position as borne out by the Division Bench
judgments of this Court have been rejecting the applications. The
officials are therefore directed to consider the application for
community certificate adhering to the aforesaid judgments.
The community certificate is not a mere certificate, but it is a reflection
of a person's communal identity. It enables the applicant to avail the
benefits of reservation, which is extended to the notified communities to
achieve the constitutional goal of equality and social justice.
17. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order
dated 25.07.2023 passed by the respondent is set aside. The case is
remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration in the light of the
documents produced by the petitioner. The respondents shall consider
the application and pass orders within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 15/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is
allowed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs. The Government is directed to
circulate a copy of this judgment to the concerned departments so as to
avoid future litigation arising out of G.O.(Ms).No.61, Adi Dravidar and
Tribal Welfare (ADW-10) Department, dated 04.04.2006.
(J.N.B, J.) (N.M, J.)
Index : Yes / No 10.08.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dsn
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Chennai- 47.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 16/17
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.MALA, J.
dsn
W.P.No.23000 of 2023
and
WMP.No.22499 of 2023
10.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 17/17
