1. The State of Kerala seldom files a writ petition and not without reason in the instant case. The Lok Ayukta has declared the caste status of a person and has further directed the Tahsildar to act in terms of the finding so entered!!!

2. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241] has highlighted the necessity to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and other approval. The Supreme Court has even recently in Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and others [2011 (11) SCALE 448] approved the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case as being intrinsic to the fulfilment of fundamental rights. The State of Kerala has enacted the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (the 'Act' for short) in tune with the judgment of the Supreme Court first quoted. An application for Community Certificate has to be preferred under Section 4 of the Act and the competent authority can issue the said certificate under Section 5 of the Act. An appeal is provided against the order of the competent authority to the authority designated under Section 12 of the Act and a further revision to the government under Section 13 of the Act. The order of the government in revision is of course open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The first respondent bypassed this procedure and filed Ext.R1(m) complaint before the Lok Ayukta purportedly under Section 9 (1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. The Lok Ayukta was conscious of the fact that the issue of Community Certificate is regulated by the Act when it observed in Ext.P4 as follows:

"We are not considering this contention raised by the complainant and the documents produced by her in support of this contention since the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 as amended and the Rules framed thereunder have constituted the appellate and revisional authorities against the report of expert agency, scrutiny committee etc. and the complaint has to establish that contention in appropriate proceedings before appropriate authority under the process of law"

Nevertheless the Lok Ayukta concluded as follows:

"I hold that the complainant is eligible to get caste certificate issued by the competent authority showing that she belongs to Hindu -Sambavar community which is included in the list of scheduled castes. The second prayer made is for a declaration that the first respondent is unfit to hold the post he holds at present. Though the conduct of the first respondent warrants, prima facie, such drastic action against him, I think, before proceeding further under Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, he can be given an opportunity to file action taken report in terms of the finding entered above and if he does so, further proceedings can be dropped." (emphasis supplied)

4. The State of Kerala contends that the Lok Ayukta lacks jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P4 when the issue of Community Certificate is regulated by the Act only. The State points out that the first respondent has not even approached the Tahsidar with an application under Section 4 of the Act to complain of 'grievance' or 'mal-administration' for not passing orders thereon. The term 'grievance' has been defined in Section 2 (h) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 as follows:

"Grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration"

he term 'mal-administration' has been defined in Section 2 (k) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 as follows:

"Mal-administration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,--

(i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unrea