The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a fair and proper decision-making process in determining the eligibility for a Community Certificate, emphasizing the need for a thorough enquiry and the application of mind by the authorities.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. What is challenged in this Writ Petition is the order, dated 19.09.2013, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the Community Certificate for Panniandi Community, which is a Scheduled Caste Community, seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to the respondents to issue the Panniandi Scheduled Caste Community Certificate to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Panniandi Community, which is a Scheduled Caste Community. In the vicinity of Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri Districts, large extent of Panniandi Community people are residing and they originally carried on their family occupation of rearing pigs. Subsequently, due to modernisation and global development, the said Community people started to change their avocation according to their suitability and now-a-days, the said family occupation of rearing pigs disappeared, but however, some of the families still continue the same. The Revenue Department refused to issue the Community Certificate as Scheduled Caste of Panniandi and Kosangi Communities. There were several representations and demonstration by the said Community people, demanding to recognise their Community and for issuance of the said Community Certificate, based on which, the Deputy Secretary of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai, issued a Communication, dated 02.09.2013 in Letter No.13959/Sa.Ma-1/2013-1, directing the District Collectors of Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri Districts to issue the Community Certificate of Panniandi and Kosangi as Scheduled Caste Communities, based on the respective applications. Accordingly, the Certificates have been issued by the respondents to several persons who are relatives, nephews, nieces, etc., of the petitioner. Several relatives of the petitioner were issued with the Community Certificate of Panniandi from the years 1982 to 1988, 2009 and 2010 by the Revenue Department.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in order to get a Community Certificate, he has made an application to the first respondent on 01.07.2013, requesting to issue the Panniandi Community Certificate, which is classified as a Scheduled Caste. The first respondent forwarded the said application to the third respondent for necessary action and the same was also received. Subsequently, without proper enquiry and without recording the statement from the petitioner and his family members, the third respondent passed the impugned order, dated 19.09.2013, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, stating that on enquiry, they found that the petitioner belonged to Johi Community, which is a Most Backward Class Community and the third respondent also observed that only based on the School Certificate produced by the petitioner, the Panniandi Community Certificate could not be issued to him. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act to the third respondent, requesting to furnish the statements recorded from the public and also the enquiry report of the Revenue Inspector, Palacode and other particulars, regarding the action taken on his application. The second respondent sent an enquiry report regarding the clarification for issuance of Panniandi Community Certificate for the Panthi Johi and plain Johis, and, by proceedings, dated 24.07.1996 in ROC.No.13043/93/A3, the then Revenue Divisional Officer clarified that Panniandi Community Certificate was issued to the people who belonged to Panthi Johi Community, which is genuine and they migrated from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu and doing the traditional profession of breeding pigs. Now-a-days, the traditional profession had been modified according to their convenience and hence, the Community cannot be changed. This aspect was not considered by the third respondent while passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order of the third respondent is arbitrary and illegal. The issuance of Comm