Madras High Court
K.Mithila vs The Union Of India on 5 February, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.3482 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.No.3482 of 2025
K.Mithila ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India
represented by its
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
Railway Board,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
5. K.Purusothaman ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3482 of 2025
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry against the
5th respondent and pass orders based on the petitioner's representation dated
16.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ashok Kumar
Senior Panel Counsel[For R1 to R3]
Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan
Additional Government Pleader
[For R4]
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the
respondents to conduct enquiry against the 5th respondent and pass orders
based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2024.
2. The writ petitioner is a relative of the 5th respondent. The son of
the 5th respondent married the daughter of the writ petitioner. On account of
matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the petitioner and the son of the
5th respondent, enmity developed between two families.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the 5th respondent submitted a bogus community
certificate and secured employment in Southern Railways. The representation
given by the petitioner dated 16.12.2024 is yet to be disposed of. Thus, the
present writ petition came to be instituted.
4. From the date of representation hardly one and a half months
lapsed. It may not be possible for the Southern Railways to conduct such a
lengthy enquiry regarding verification of community certificate within a
period of one and a half months. It requires lot of verification and
adjudication before the State Level scrutiny Committee and only after
enquiry, the genuinity of the community certificate can be ascertained.
Therefore, filing a writ petition within a period of one and a half months from
submitting the representation, with reference to the complaint relating to
bogus community certificate, cannot be decided by the Authorities. It
requires verification from various other Departments of the State
Government and the State Level Scrutiny Committee. With reference to
Scheduled Caste Community, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is the
Authority to conduct an enquiry and submit its report to the Government for
initiation of appropriate actions relating to the community of a person.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Regarding fixation of time limit, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it cannot be done in a mechanical manner by the Courts. The
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
reported in 2024 (6) SCC 267 reiterated the principles in paragraph No.47.3,
which reads as under:
"47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should
refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases
pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue
directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional
circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should
be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases
are pending."
6. However, the complaint received is yet to be inquired into by the
competent Authorities by following the due procedures.
7. Mr.V.Ashok Kumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
Southern Railway would bring it to the notice of this Court that the 5th
respondent was already allowed to retire from service on 31.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The Southern Railway has to consider whether an action relating
to community certificate can be proceeded with after retirement of an
employee from the establishment, in the context of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which has been recently decided.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents shall
initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.]
04.02.2025
veda
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Union of India
represented by its
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
Railway Board,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Principle Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003.
4. The Chairman,
State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
veda
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
