Madras High Court
A.Malliga vs The District Collector on 25 April, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.19012 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.19012 of 2024
and
WMP(MD)Nos.16086 and 16087 of 2024
A.Malliga ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate, Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchendur Post, Thoothukudi District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Sathankulam Post and Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chennai. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
W.P(MD)No.19012 of 2024
(R5 is suo motu impleaded vide court order dated 06.08.2024 in
WP(MD)No.19012 of 2024)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 3 rd
respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.A4/6111/2022 dated 31.05.2023 and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue
Kattunayakan community certificate to the petitioner's children namely,
Pechimuthu, Saranya, Suganya and Masana Moorthi and Nithya, within
a stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)
Challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the 3rd
respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner to issue kattunayakan
community certificate to the petitioner's children, this writ petition is
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
2. The petitioner would state that she belongs to kattunayakan
community. She has four children. For their higher education, she
applied for community certificate to the 3rd respondent, who in turn,
directed the petitioner to produce the blood relative community
certificate and cousin brother's community certificate. The petitioner
produced the required documents along with the genealogy chart.
Though pursuant to the direction of the 3rd respondent, the 4th
respondent/Tahsildar conducted an enquiry into the communal status
of the petitioner and recommended the case of the petitioner for
issuance of Hindu-kattunayakan community certificate, the 3rd
respondent passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has
not submitted any document in respect of first generation persons
indicated in the genealogy chart and further his cultural and other
aspects did not reflect the community of Kattunayakan. Accordingly,
the 3rd respondent rejected the community claim of the petitioner. As
against the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state
that the 3rd respondent has not followed the procedure for issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
SC/ST community certificates. As per the procedure, if the application
is submitted with insufficient details, then the authority can direct the
applicant to renew the request with full details. However, contrary to
the said procedure, the 3rd respondent citing the insufficient details, has
rejected the claim of the petitioner. In support of the said proposition,
he would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.
26186 of 2023, dated 12.09.2023 [N.Rajagopal vs. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, and two others] (in which one of us
(JNBJ) was a party). Thus, he would pray for setting aside the
impugned order and to allow the writ petition.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents would state that even though the petitioner did not
produce the documents in respect of first generation persons, she did
not elucidate her communal status during the enquiry and therefore, the
3rd respondent has rightly rejected the community claim of the petitioner
which does not require interference by this Court.
5. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
6. Before venturing on the merits of the case, we feel it
appropriate to clarify the position on the procedure adopted by the
respondents while considering the applications filed for issuance of
community certificate by manual/traditional method. In the Manual for
verification of community certificate published by the Government,
Clause 3.9 lays down the procedure for issuance of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe community certificate. For better appreciation of
the case, the procedure under Clause 3.9 of the Manual on Scheduled
Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Community Certificates-Issuance and
Verification, is extracted as follows:
3.9. Procedure for Issuance of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe Certificates.-
A. Traditional/Manual Method. -
(1) The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made
to the Tahsildars (in case of Scheduled Castes) and Revenue
Divisional Officers/SubCollectors/Assistant Collectors/Personal
Assistant (General) to Collector of Chennai (in case of Scheduled
Tribes).
(2) 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.
(3) On receipt of the application from the candidate, the competent
Revenue officer authorized for issuing Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Community Certificates shall himself visit the candidate's local
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
place of residence and make enquiries with the candidates; his
parent/guardian; blood relatives; local residents (tribes and non-
tribes); such other person who have knowledge of the social status of
the candidate, local revenue offers such as VAO, Ri; etc., in an open
and transparent fashion.
(4) On completion of due inquiry and proper verification of
records/documents collected during the field enquiry, the above
authority has the following three options for disposal of such
applications:-
i. The competent authority (RDO/Tahsildar) can issue the
certificate applied for, if he is fully satisfied.
ii. If it is found after due inquiry that the request is not
feasible of compliance, the competent authority can reject it
and issue a speaking order to the applicant and close the
papers.
iii. If the application is submitted with insufficient details or
if it is found that additional details are required after inquiry,
the authority can direct the applicant to renew the request
with full details in a complete shape and close the papers.
(5) In the cases, where the issuing authority is fully satisfied that the
claim of the candidate or parent or guardian, as the case may be, that
he belong to that community is correct, the above authority shall issue
the permanent Community Certificate card to the candidate
concerned.
(6) The competent authority while issuing community certificate,
should consider the Scheduled Tribe community issued in favour of
the parents and close relatives of the applicants, subject to verification
of the relationship and until the above Scrutiny Committee, the
competent authority should accept the same and issue Scheduled
Tribe Community Certificate to the applicants.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
7. Clause 4(iii) of the procedure categorically states that if the
application is submitted with insufficient details or if it is found that
additional details are required after inquiry, the authority can direct the
applicant to renew the request with full details in a complete shape and
close the papers. In the case on hand, though the 3rd respondent has
observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has not submitted
the documents in respect of first generation to prove her community
claim, the 3rd respondent did not choose to direct the petitioner to renew
the request with full details as stated in the abovesaid procedure,
whereas, he has proceeded to reject the very community claim itself
which is contrary to the abovesaid procedure. On that score alone, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 3rd
respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.A4/6111/2022 dated 31.05.2023, is set
aside and the 3rd respondent shall consider the application submitted by
the petitioner strictly in accordance with the relevant procedure for
issuance of SC/ST community certificate. After getting the required
additional particulars/documents from the petitioner and after holding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
an enquiry by providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner
including personal hearing and after making a field inspection, the 3rd
respondent shall pass a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]
25.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi District.
2. The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate, Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruchendur Post, Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
4. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Sathankulam Post and Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
5. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 05:15:25 pm )
