Madras High Court
T.Narasimhan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 September, 2024
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
2024:MHC:3501
W.P.No.35585 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.No.35585 of 2023
T.Narasimhan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tirupattur – 635 601. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records in the online order dated NIL rejecting Application Number TN-
5202309297789 of the petitioner and quash the same and direct the
respondent to issue a “Kurumans” Scheduled Tribe community
certificate to the petitioner's son N.D.Nirmal on the basis of the
petitioner's community certificate dated 28.11.2015 issued by the
respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Ravi,
Special Government Pleader
Page Nos.1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35585 of 2023
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]
Captioned 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity)
turns on Article 342 of the Constitution captioned 'Scheduled Tribes'.
Article 342 of the Constitution provides for the President in
consultation with the Governors of the States and Union Territories to
make public notifications specifying Tribes or Tribal Communities or
parts of or groups within Tribes or Tribal Communities which shall, for
the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in
relation to that State. Notification vide Article 342 has been made
with regard to various States and Union Territories including Tamil
Nadu and we find from the Notification for Tamil Nadu which is now
operating that 'Kurumans' has been notified and it finds place in the
adumbration.
2. In the captioned WP, Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for
writ petitioner and Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader for
the sole respondent are before us.
3. Adverting to the writ affidavit and the typed set forming part
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the case file, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the writ
petitioner applied for a Scheduled Tribe Certificate i.e., Community
Certificate for his son one N.D.Nirmal based on writ petitioner's
community certificate dated 28.11.2015 issued by the sole
respondent. The application was summarily rejected in and by a mono
syllabic order uploaded online in the portal. The order says 'Rejected'.
A scanned reproduction of this web page is as follows:
4. Adverting to the above, learned counsel for the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submits that the jurisdictional Tahsildar has recommended but the
jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) {sole respondent in
captioned matter} has summarily rejected the application without
examining any records.
5. In this regard, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that
the matter is directly and squarely covered by an order dated
22.04.2016 made by another Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.No.17231
of 2015 etc., Learned counsel has placed before us a copy of this
Division Bench order and the same reads as follows:
'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 12.4.2016
Date of decision: 22.4.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Writ Petition Nos.17231, 17232, 17495 and 17496 of 2015
P.Govindarasu Petitioner in
W.P.Nos.17231 &
17232 of 2015
G.Ramasamy Petitioner in
W.P.Nos.17495 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17496 of 2015
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Harur, Dharmapuri District. Respondent in all
the four cases
Prayer: Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order of
Rejection passed in proceedings in Pa.Mu.2102/2014(A1),
Pa.Mu.2103/2014(A1),Pa.Mu.3872/2014(A1) and
Pa.Mu.3873/2014(A1) respectively dated 13.4.2015 on the file of
the respondent quash the same and direct the respondent to
issue Community Certificate to the son/daughter of the
petitioner viz. G.Gokulraj, G.Santhalakshmi, R.Sri Raja
Rajeswari and R.Mohan respectively that he/she belongs to
Kurumans (ST) Community based upon the Community
Certificate already issued to the petitioner and his family
members.
For petitioners : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
All the four writ petitions are filed questioning the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioners' applications
for grant of community certificate and consequential direction
to issue community certificate as Kurumans (ST) based on the
community certificate already issued to the members of the
petitioner's family.
2. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions are
common, all the writ petitions are considered and decided by
this common order.
3. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.17231 and 17232
of 2015, petitioner is the father of two minor children viz.,
G.Gokulraj and G.Santhalakshmi, and he belongs to Kurumans
Community which is notified as a scheduled tribe (ST)
community, already a competent authority issued a community
certificate to him as Kurumans (ST), when he applied for
community certificate for his children, the respondent rejected
the same holding that on examination of the birth certificates of
residents of Pandarachettipatti Village before 1976, all of them
are registered as Kurumbar and there is no registration in the
name of Kurumans, and applicants are belongs to Kurumbar
community which is a Most Backward Class (MBC) community and
not belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community. In the case of the
petitioner in W.P.Nos.17495 and 17496 of 2015, the petitioner
belongs to Kurumans Community which is an ST community, a
community certificate was already issued in the name of his wife
R.Govindammal as Kurumans community, and out of his four
children, his two daughters R.Indumathi and R.Ilamathi were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued with community certificates by the respondent that they
belong to Kurumans (ST). But, when he applied for community
certificate for his younger son R.Mohan and daughter Sri.Raja
Rajeswari, the respondent rejected the applications stating that
they belong to Kurumbar community which is an MBC community
and they do not belong to Kurumans as claimed by the
petitioner, challenging the orders passed by the respondent, the
above four writ petitions were filed.
4. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioners
would contend that already a community certificate was issued
in the name of the petitioner who is the father of the applicants
in W.P.Nos.17231 and 17232 of 2015 and mother and two sisters
of the applicants in W.P.Nos.17495 and 17496 of 2015 as
Kurumans(ST), the above community certificates are still in
force and not cancelled by the higher authority, once a
community certificate was issued in favour of the parents, unless
the same is cancelled by the higher authority, the respondent
cannot reject the same holding that the petitioners family
belongs to Kurumbar(MBC) Community and do not belong to
Kurumans Community. The learned counsel would further submit
that this court, in number of cases, has repeatedly held that the
community by name “Kurumbar” is not one notified by
Presidential Notification as MBC and therefore, the same cannot
be a ground for rejecting the request for community certificate
for Kurumans and the competent authority viz., the respondent
is not entitled to refer the name of Kurumbar (MBC) for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
purpose of deciding the claim of issuance of community
certificates The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the
following decisions:
i). Order dated 11.2.2011 in W.P.No.3233 of 2011
ii) Order dated 29.3.2012 in W.P.No.21535 of 2011
iii) Order dated 5.11.2013 in W.P.No.1807 of 2013
iv) Order dated 25.11.2013 in W.P.Nos.25963 and 25964 of 2013
v) Order dated 1.7.2015 in W.P.No.19251 of 2015
vi) Order dated 13.7.2015 in W.P.No.9512 of 2015
vii) Order dated 28.1.2016 in Cont.P.No.2200 of 2015
viii) Order dated 30.3.2016 in W.P.No.14699 of 2015
5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent, placing reliance upon the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent, contended that as per the
instructions issued by the Government, an enquiry was conducted
and concluded that the families of the writ petitioners do not
belong to Kurumans (ST), but only belongs to Kurumbar (MBC)
the principles of natural justice was followed and final orders
were passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners on 21.10.2014. The learned Special Government
Pleader further submitted that during the older years, there is
no entry in the school records as Kurumans, but only as
Kurumbar and further relying upon the counter affidavit,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted that the respondent, being a revenue authority, got
adequate knowledge about the Kurumans community people and
after considering all relevant documents rightly rejected the
applications for grant of community certificates as
Kurumans(ST).
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the records. As contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.17231 and 17232 of 2015,
P.Govindarasu obtained community certificate from the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri on 9.12.1994 as Kurumans (ST) .
According to the petitioner, the above certificate is still valid
and so far, no steps were taken by the higher authorities to
cancel the same. Likewise, the petitioner's wife in W.P.Nos.17495
and 17496 of 2015 was issued with a community certificate as
Kurumans (ST) by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri,
the respondent herein on 23.7.1996, apart from that, his two
daughters R.Indumathi and R.Ilamathi were also issued with
community certificates by the respondent on 27.5.2009, the
above fact was neither disputed nor denied by the respondent in
his counter affidavit, but, when the petitioners applied for
community certificates in favour of his other son and daughters,
the same authority rejected the application.
7. We have carefully gone through the impugned order
passed by the respondent as well as the counter affidavits filed
in the writ petitions. Even though the applicants in all the four
writ petitions produced the community certificates issued in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
favour of their parent and sisters, the respondents did not
consider the certificates, but, rejected the applications on the
only ground that they all belong to Kurumbar (MBC) community
and do not belong to Kurumans (ST). This Court in a number of
cases repeatedly held that once the parents of the applicants
were issued with community certificates, without any further
verification, the children are also entitled to get the said
community certificates. The authorities cannot doubt the
certificate issued in favour of the parents by another competent
authority unless it is set aside or modified by the higher
authority viz., the State Level Scrutiny Committee. A Division
Bench of this court in W.P.No.19251 of 2015 in which one of us
(SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.) is a member, (D.Ruthiran v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) has held as under:-
"We have been repeatedly observing that a community
comprises of the members of the family and also members
of the same group or tribe, caste, the children derive
their community from their parents. If the parents were
granted community certificate, without any further
verification, their children, are entitled to the said
certificate. The respondent has no authority to doubt the
certificates issued in favour of the parents by the
competent authority unless the same is set aside or
modified by the higher authority i.e., State Level Scrutiny
Committee."
8. In another judgment in W.P.No.9512 of 2015 dated
13.7.2015, in which one of us (SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.) is a
member, (L.Pushparaj v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dhramapuri) has held as under:-
"2. Identical issue came up for consideration before
this Court in several writ petitions. We clearly observed
that the children derive the community from their parents
and as such if a certificate is granted to the parents,
particularly, father, by a competent authority and the
same is not doubted by any other competent authority or
set aside or modified by the higher authority viz., the
State Level Scrutiny Committee, the respondent has no
jurisdiction to take a contrary view on the basis of certain
entries made in the School Register and other documents.
3. We have examined all the documents enclosed
with the writ petition. It is noticed that the certificates
were issued in favour of the petitioner and his father and
his brother by the competent officer. It is not the case of
the respondent that the said certificates have been found
as sham and bogus by the higher authorities. In that view
of the matter, there is no reason to reject the application
of the petitioner on aforestated ground, which may not
sustain in view of the proper certificates issued to the
father, uncle and grandfather by the competent authority."
9. In yet another judgment in W.P.No.1807 of 2013 dated
5.11.2013, (A.M.Sivakumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri), a Division Bench of this court has held as under:
"6. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the
community certificates issued to the petitioner and his
wife stating that they belong to 'Kurumans' (Scheduled
Tribe) Community are valid and have not been cancelled in
the manner known to law. If such valid community
certificates are produced before the authority, the same
should be taken into consideration for all purposes, even
for granting community certificates to the children."
10. This court, time and again, held that when the
community certificate was issued in favour of the parents of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
applicants by a competent authority, the other competent
authority while examining the application for issuance of such
certificates for his children, cannot wish away the said
certificate on any ground, unless the same is set aside by a
higher authority, as the children of a particular community
derive their social status from their parents. In such
circumstances, when the applicants produced a copy of the
community certificate issued to his/her parents and his/her
brothers and sisters, the respondent cannot reject their
application on the ground that they only belong to Kurumbar
(MBC) Community, without considering the above certificates. If
at all, any doubt arises regarding the genuineness of the
community certificate issued to their parents, the only course
open to the competent authority is to refer the same to the
State Level Scrutiny Committee for verification and the
respondent cannot take a contrary stand and reject the
application.
11. Apart from that, the respondent rejected the
application only on the ground that the applicants are Kurumbar
(MBC) and do not belong to Kurumans(ST). This court, in number
of cases, has held that there is no community called Kurumbar
notified under Presidential Notification and the same cannot be
a ground for rejecting the request for issuing Kurumans (ST)
community certificate. The community by name Kurumbar is not
notified under the Presidential Notification as MBC, so the
respondent / competent authority cannot hold that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners belong to Kurumbar (MBC) and reject the
applications. A Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.3233 of
2011 dated 11.2.2011, (Ganesan v. The Revenue Divisional
Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District) has held as under:-
"As far as the second contention is concerned, we
are of the considered view that the community known as
Kurumbar is not the one notified under the Presidential
Notification and therefore, the same cannot be a ground
for rejecting the request for community certificate."
12. In yet another decision of this court in W.P.Nos.25963
and 25964 of 2013 dated 25.11.2013 (E.Mani and another v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai) has held as under:
"8. We find much force in the plea made by the
petitioners that the competent authority has relied upon
the community Kurumbar 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Even though in number of occasions, this court has
held that the competent authority cannot rely upon the
community "Kurumbar" for rejecting the applications seeking
Kurumans scheduled tribe community certificate, the authorities
are repeatedly violating the same by rejecting the applications
on the ground that the applicants belong to Kurumbar (MBC)
Community. Hence, on that ground also, the impugned order
passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside.
14. So far as conducting enquiry for grant of Scheduled
Tribe community certificate is concerned, a Division Bench of
this court in which one of us (SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.) is a
member, in G.VENKITASAMY & ANOTHER v. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE
LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (20161LW 289), has issued guidelines
as follows:-
"29. From the aforestated analysis, it is manifest
that the authorities are required to investigate, identify
and conduct the enquiry in the following manner:
i The authority competent to issue the community
certificate, on receipt of the application, shall investigate
the application in an open and transparent fashion,
affording opportunity of hearing.
ii The candidate shall have full liberty to explain
the documents placed by him or collected by the
investigating agency and he shall have opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses, if required. The entire exercise
shall be completed at the earliest, preferably, within a
period of three months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iii On receipt of the community certificate issued
by the competent authority, the candidate or any other
party interested therein may refer the matter to the State
Level Scrutiny Committee for verification.
iv On receipt of the application for verification, the
State Level Scrutiny Committee shall refer the matter to
the Vigilance Cell for enquiry.
v The Vigilance Cell, as constituted, shall
investigate into the social status claim of the applicant,
visiting the local place of residence and original place
from which the candidate hails and usually resides. The
Vigilance Officer, assisted by the Inspector of Police, shall
verify all the documents and collect relevant facts in an
open and transparent manner from all the relevant places
such as school, locality, etc. and persons such as parents
and close relatives and also examine the school officials,
parents/guardians and other close relatives of the
concerned caste. The Vigilance Cell shall also record the
anthropological and ethnological traits and rituals,
customs, mode of marriage and other ceremonies of the
community claimed by the candidate. Thereafter, on
receipt of explanation from the candidate, on a proper
examination of the same, a reasoned report shall be
submitted to the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
vi The State Level Scrutiny Committee, on receipt
of the Vigilance Cell report, if it is found adverse, shall
issue a show cause notice to the candidate with a copy of
the report and all the documents submitted by the
Vigilance Cell to the concerned candidate, calling upon
him to file his reply/explanation/representation and also
express his intention to examine witnesses, if necessary. In
the event, the report supports the claim of the candidate,
the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall not proceed
further, but, to pass the order.
vii The State Level Scrutiny Committee, on
completion of the enquiry, shall send a copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings/order to the candidate within a period of two
weeks.
viii Such verification shall be completed within a
period of two months, after receipt of the Vigilance Cell
report, preferably, by daytoday proceedings [See
paragraph 13(9) of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra)]."
15. The competent authorities, without following the
directions and the guidelines issued by this court, rejecting the
applications on erroneous consideration that the applicants
belong to Kurumbar (MBC) Community which is not notified
under the Presidential Notification. Hence, in addition to the
above guidelines, we would like to issue further directions as
follows:
i) The competent authority while issuing the community
certificate, should consider the Schedule Tribe community
certificate issued in favour of the parents and close relatives of
the applicants, subject to verification of the relationship and
until the above certificates are cancelled by the higher authority
namely State Level Scrutiny Committee, the competent
authority should accept the same and issue Schedule Tribe
Community Certificate to the 16 applicants.
ii) The competent authority should not reject the
application referring the name of Kurumbar(MBC) while deciding
the claim for issuance of Kurumans (ST) community certificate as
authorities are not entitled to refer the name of Kurumbar
(MBC) for the purpose of deciding the issue of granting
Kurumans(ST) Community Certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Inspite of several orders passed by this court, the
competent authorities are repeatedly rejecting the applications
without considering the community certificates issued to the
parents and close relatives of the applicants and also referring
to Kurumbar(MBC) for rejecting the claim. Hence, we direct the
Government to give suitable instructions to all the competent
authorities to follow the directions issued by this court while
deciding the claim of Kurumans (ST) community certificates.
17. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders
passed by the respondent are set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the respondent for considering the applications
in the light of the orders passed by this court, after affording an
opportunity to the petitioners and the respondent is directed to
pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ
petitions are disposed of. No costs.'
6. Learned State counsel very fairly submits that the captioned
matter is directly and squarely covered by P.Govindarasu batch
(extracted and reproduced supra).
7. In the light of the stated position of both sides, we deem it
appropriate to pass an order in the captioned writ petition saying that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the same will be governed by common order dated 22.04.2016 made
in W.P.No.17231 of 2015 batch, which has been extracted and
reproduced supra.
8. Ergo, as a sequitur, we direct the respondent to embark upon
this exercise as set out in P.Govindarasu batch supra, more particularly
paragraph 15 thereat forthwith and complete the exercise as
expeditiously as the official business of the respondent would permit
and in any event within five weeks from today i.e., by 18.10.2024.
Learned State counsel to inform the respondent about this order.
9. Captioned WP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.)
13.09.2024
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
mmi
P.S. I: Upload forthwith
P.S.II : All concerned including the respondent to act forthwith on the
uploaded soft copy of this proceedings as uploaded in the official
website of this Court. To be noted, the soft copies uploaded in the
official website of this Court are water marked, besides being QR
Coded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupattur – 635 601.
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
mmi
13.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
