Madras High Court
S.Veerabathiran … vs The Sub Collector on 24 August, 2023
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
S.Veerabathiran … Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Collector,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District. … Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of
rejection passed in Pa.Mu.A4/5235/2022 dated 12.09.2022 on the file of the respondent
quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the
petitioner's daughters viz., 1) V.Sharumathi and 2) V.Lavanya that they belong to
Kurumans (ST) Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the
petitioner and pass such further or other order.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mr.E.Vijayanand
Additional Government Pleader
*****
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]
This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the order of rejection
passed in Pa.Mu.A4/5235/2022 dated 12.09.2022 on the file of the respondent quash
the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's
daughters viz., 1) V.Sharumathi and 2) V.Lavanya that they belong to Kurumans (ST)
Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the petitioner and
pass such further or other order.
2.It is submitted that the respondents do not have the knowledge about
communities and that is the reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he
belongs to the Kurumbar Community since there is no community such as Kurumbar.
The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25963 of 2013 while holding there is no
community such as Kurumbar, directed the Secretary to Government to instruct the
certificate issuing authorities and the concerned authorities to refrain from issuing
community certificate as Kurumbar and to recall the certificates already issued as
Kurumbar and to rectify the mistake. Based on the above order the Secretary to
Government issued a circular in Letter No.901/CV1/2014-1 dated 18.03.2014 to all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
competent authorities to recall the certificates already issued as Kurumbar. In another
writ petition in W.P.No.1807 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court, while setting
aside, the certificate that the candidate belongs to Kurumbar community directed the
RDO, to issue a community certificate that the candidate belongs to Kurumans (ST)
Community. Hence, the order passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner's own brother's
certificate was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and found to be genuine.
However, as reprehensible and unreasonable they are, the authorities rejected the claim
of the petitioner, despite the claim being based on the certificate issued to his own
brother which was held to be genuine by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
4.From the impugned order, it is seen that the community certificate to the
petitioner's husband and daughter were rejected on the ground that the petitioner's
husband and daughter belong to the Hindu Kurumbar MBC Community. The Division
Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition in W.P.Nos.25963 and 25964 of 2013 held as
follows:
“8.We find much force in the plea made by the petitioners that
the competent authority has relied upon the community “Kurumbar”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
for rejecting the application for Scheduled Tribe community
certificate and we once again reiterate that the competent authority is
not entitled to refer to the name of “Kurumbar” (MBC) for the
purpose of deciding the claim for issuance of Scheduled Tribe
Community Certificate. Even assuming that there are certificates
issued in favour of one or other persons bearing the name of
“Kurumbar” with or without MBC tag, the authority shall
independently verify the claim as to whether the petitioner falls under
the Scheduled Tribe community on the basis of relevant materials that
would be submitted by the petitioner in the relevant case and also
shall follow the procedures prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.106 dated
15.10.2012. The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department is directed to inform all the competent authorities to
cease and desist from referring to the name of the community as
“Kurumbar” (allegedly said to be MBC) for the purpose of deciding
any claim whatsoever.”
5.In the instance case, it is seen that the District Revenue Officer rejected the
claim for community certificate on the ground that the petitioner's husband and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
daughter belong to Hindu Kurumbar MBC Community. As held by this Court in the
above said Division Bench Judgment, Kurumbar Community does not find place in the
presidential notification for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and even in the Most
Backward Class notification. Therefore, the reference to Kurumbar Community by the
first respondent is erroneous and untenable.
6.As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
submitted the community certificate of his brother, children and other family members
in support of his claim that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Kuruman Scheduled Tribe
community. It has been repeatedly held by the Division Bench Judgments of this Court
and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the certificate of close
relatives particularly the parents are available and found to be valid the community
certificate should not be rejected.
7.In the instance case, the petitioner has produced the certificate of the family tree
issued by the Tahsildar, to establish the relationship. Though the respondent in the
impugned order has stated that against the impugned order an appeal would lie to the
State Level Scrutiny Committee, we are not inclined to drive the petitioner to the
appellate forum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
8.We are of the view that the impugned order was passed on a misconception of
the respondents as regards the Government Order's, particularly the letter dated
18.03.2014 of the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 addressed to All the District Collectors,
instructing them to refrain from issuing community certificates as “Kurumbar” and to
take necessary action for recalling the certificates already issued as “Kurumbar” and
rectify the mistake. We therefore set aside the impugned orders. As the Community
“Kurumbar” does not find place in the notified list of MBC/BC/De-notified
communities and in the list of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes notified in the
presidential orders, we direct the 1st respondent to independently verify the claim of the
petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribes (Kuruman's Community) on the basis of
the materials to be placed before the 1 st respondent and to consider the same
by following the procedure in G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 15.10.2012. The said exercise
shall be conducted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
J.N.B.J., N.M.J.,
24.08.2023
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
ah
To
The Sub Collector,
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
J.NISHA BANU, J.
&
N.MALA, J.
ah
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22515 of 2023
24.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
