Madras High Court
S.Shanmugavel vs State Level Scrutiny Committee on 31 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.1835 of 2017 & 2055 of 2023
S.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Level Scrutiny Committee
Represented by its Chairman and Secretary to Government
Adhi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & Chairman,
District Level Vigilance Committee,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
4.Development Commissioner
Development Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
5/9, Under Hill Road,
Delhi-110 054. .. Respondents
(Respondent No.4 is impleaded vide Court Order
dated 24.04.2017 in W.M.P(MD)No.2956 of 2017)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the
Impugned Order of the first respondent Proceedings in
No.6391/CV-2/2010-18, dated 23.12.2016 and quash the same as
illegal .
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Kannan,
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok - for R1 to R3
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.P.Thilak Kumar - for R4
Government Pleader
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 7
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]
Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.J.Ashok, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3
and Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
fourth respondent.
2. The caste of the petitioner that he is belonging to
Kattunayakken Schedule Tribe Community has been invalidated.
Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition.
3. Among other submissions, one of the submissions made
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that along with the
vigilance report, the petitioner filed a copy of the sale deed executed by
the father of the petitioner on 15.06.1950. In the said sale deed, the
caste of the petitioner's father is recorded as Kattu Nayakkan.
According to the learned Senior Counsel, these documents have not
been considered by the Committee. It is further submitted that the
paternal cousin of the petitioner, namely, Mohan had been issued with
validity certificate of Kattu Nayakkan Scheduled Tribes. In his case,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
the same sale deed was relied. The said validity was issued to him,
pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17223 of 2006 under
judgment and order dated 23.07.2010. It is further submitted that the
same sale deed was relied upon by the family of the purchaser and the
same has been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.6119 of 1997 under judgment and order dated 25.08.2000.
4. No doubt, the old document will have more probative
value and if a paternal relative has been issued with the validity
certificate, the same would be a relevant fact to be considered.
5. The petitioner had not produced the sale deed dated
15.06.1950 along with all the documents. The Vigilance could not be
conducted in respect of the said document. The Committee will also
have to consider the relationship of the present petitioner with the said
Mohan.
6. In the light of the aforesaid fact and considering that
matter involves the social status of the petitioner, we are inclined to
grant one more opportunity to the petitioner by remitting the matter to
the Committee.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
7. In the light of the above, we pass the following order :
The impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The parties are relegated before the
Committee. The parties shall appear before the
Committee on 14th September, 2023. The
Committee may carry out vigilance in respect of
the sale deed, dated 15.06.1950. The petitioner
may produce the genealogy before the Committee.
The Committee may also consider the case records
of Mohan whose validity certificate is relied by the
petitioner and decide the proceedings, on its own
merits, preferably, within a period of four months
from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.V.G., C.J.] [C.K., J.]
31.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
To
1.State Level Scrutiny Committee
Represented by its Chairman and Secretary to Government
Adhi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector & Chairman,
District Level Vigilance Committee,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Collector,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.Development Commissioner
Development Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
5/9, Under Hill Road,
Delhi-110 054.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
RM
W.P(MD)No.2219 of 2017
31.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
