Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 804
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU
M.Varadan and others
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu and others
W.P. No.4070 of 1986
Decided On : 08-08-1996
R. Vaigai for Petitioners. Mr. K.V. Venkatapathy, Government Pleader for Respondents.
The Collector alone is competent to decide the question of whether a person belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
Headnote:
TRIBAL RIGHTS - URALI TRIBE - CERTIFICATE OF BELONGING - ISSUANCE - JURISDICTION - COLLECTOR - TAHASILDAR - COMPETENCY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ISSUANCE - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to certify that they belong to the Urali Tribe, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, and that they are entitled to all consequential reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tahsildar was not competent to decide the question of whether the petitioners belonged to the Urali Tribe and that the matter should have been referred to the Collector for decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tahsildar was competent to decide the question of whether the petitioners belonged to the Urali Tribe? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a certificate of belonging to the Urali Tribe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Collector alone was competent to decide the question of whether the petitioners belonged to the Urali Tribe. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to a certificate of belonging to the Urali Tribe, as there was evidence to suggest that the Urali Tribe was found in the State of Tamil Nadu and that the petitioners were members of that Tribe.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Collector of Tiruchirappalli District for a decision on the question of whether the petitioners belonged to the Urali Tribe. The Collector was directed to issue certificates to the petitioners if he found that they were members of the Urali Tribe.
K.A. Swami, CJ.
1. Petitioners are three is number. They have sought for issue of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to the respondents in the following terms:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any writ, order or direction and in particular a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to certify that the petitioners and other Urali Gounders in the State of Tamil Nadu belong to the Schedules Tribe — ‘Urali’ that has been notified by the Central Government at item 36 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 and included as item 369 in the list of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of Tamil Nadu and that the petitioners are entitled to all consequential reliefs and pass any other orders or direction as are necessary and proper to meet the ends of justice, including an order for costs.
A counter is also filed by the respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to ‘Urali’ tribe, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe and that has been notified by the Central Government at Item 36 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 and included as item 369 in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Tamil Nadu by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Though they made efforts to secure certificates to the effect that they belong to ‘Urali’ tribe, which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribes, such certificates have not been issued. The Tahsildar concerned has simply informed the petitioner 1 and 2 that they cannot be given a certificate, because ‘Urali’ tribe is not the one of the Tribes found in the District of Trichy. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, he has been informed that he has a suffix to his name as Gounder, and therefore, he cannot be considered to be a ‘Urali’ Tribe. Of course, the Tahsildar by the impugned order dated 1 8. 8.1994, pertaining to the third petitioner has referred to the report of the Revenue Inspector, recommending that since the third petitioner is a Urali, which is a scheduled tribe, certificate should be granted to him. However, the said Tahsildar has relied upon the report made by the Sub-Collector stating that no such tribe is found in the State of Tamil Nadu and there is no entry of the said Tribe in the Statistical report. Therefore, the certificate sought for should be granted.
3. The only question for consideration is as to whether the Tahsildar is competent to decide the question as to whether the petitioners are the persons belonging to Urali Tribe and if so whether such scheduled tribe is found in Tamil Nadu?
.4. It is the Collector and Collector alone, who is competent to decide the question. The Tahsildar ought to have referred the matter to the Collector for deciding that issue. As far as the report of the Sub-Collector is concerned, it was made behind the back of the petitioners, as they had not been given any opportunity, whatsoever. Even a copy of the report, stated to have been made by the Sub-Collector, on the basis of which the Tahsildar passed the impugned order, was not furnished to them. The report of the Sub-Collector and also the reasoning of the Tahsildar dated 1 8. 8.1994 appear to be contrary to the existing facts.
5. In fact, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Manaparai has issued a certificate on 9. 1982 to one Thiru M.Mohanraj, son of Thiru.V.Muthuveeran residing at Mondipatty Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, stating that he belongs to Urali Community, which is recognised by the Government as a Schedule tribe under the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. Similarly, another certificate has been issued on 211. 1982 by the same Deputy Tahsildar to one M.Annavi son of Thiru. Malaiyandi residing at Thathakkavanadanpatty Town, Ammanakampatty Village, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. One more certificate on 2
