IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
Lakshminarayanan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry – Respondent
W.P. No. 20432 of 2004
Decided On : 21-09-2017
WRIT - COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE - CANCELLATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - WRIT ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Hindu Adi Dravida, was born in Pondicherry in 1980. His father was a Statistical Inspector in the Government of Pondicherry and died in 2000. His mother is also a Government Servant. Petitioner completed his Higher Secondary Education and applied for a Community Certificate. The authorities issued certificates in 1998, 2000, and 2002, resting on the earlier certificate issued in 1998. Petitioner joined B.Tech and M.Tech courses. A complaint was made against him by the daughter of a Powerful Leader of Pondicerry Origin, alleging that he was not eligible for SC (Origin) status. The Deputy Collector (Rev.) South, Government of Pondicherry issued a Proceedings dated 15.06.2004, cancelling the Certificate No. 4195/B/DTB/20000 dated 25.07.2000 and 3426 dated 07.06.2002 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Sub Taluk Office, Bahour, opining that the Petitioner was not eligible for SC (Origin) status under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and could be treated only as SC Migrant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 15.06.2004 in Proceedings No. 376/DCRS/Cert./B4/2004 is in breach of the Principles of Natural Justice. As such, the impugned order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Respondent suffers from vice and capriciousness. In short, an adverse order cannot be passed much to the detriment of the Petitioner by not providing him with the Discreet Enquiry Report together with the statements of Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector concerned.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of the Petitioner's Community Certificate without providing him with a copy of the Discreet Enquiry Report and an opportunity to submit his objections violated the Principles of Natural Justice? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 15.06.2004 is valid and legal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Principles of Natural Justice are a constituent feature of Article 14(1) of the Constitution of India. They require that a person be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any adverse decision is taken against him. 2. In the present case, the Petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the Discreet Enquiry Report conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar and was not given an opportunity to submit his objections to the same. This violated the Principles of Natural Justice. 3. The impugned order passed by the Respondent dated 15.06.2004 is therefore illegal and void.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2004 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Committee (Headed by District Magistrate, Puducherry) for arriving at a fresh decision in the subject matter in issue.
1. The Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records pertaining to the order in Ref. No. 376/DCRS/Cert./ B4/2004 dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Respondent and to quash the same.
2. Summation of Writ Facts:
2.1. The Petitioner belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida Community which is a Scheduled Caste. He was born in Pondicherry on 16.11.1980 (vide Birth Certificate dated 08.05.1998). He had his school education in Pondicherry.
2.2. The stand of the Petitioner is that his father was a Statistical Inspector in the Government of Pondicherry and he died in the year 2000. His mother is also a Government Servant working in the Government of Pondicherry. After completing his Higher Secondary Education, his father applied to the authorities seeking issuance of Community Certificate.
2.3. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that his father was a resident of Pondicherry even before the year 1964 and therefore, he is entitled to be considered as a person of Pondicherry Origin. The then concerned Revenue Authority, after conducting an enquiry in the matter, furnished a certificate, when he was a minor.
2.4. According to the Petitioner, the aforestated certificate was issued on 20.05.1998. His date of birth is 16.11.1980. As a matter of fact, the authorities had issued further certificates on 25.07.2000 and 07.06.2002, resting on the earlier certificate issued on 20.05.1998. After joining B.Tech course during the year 1998 and after completing the said course, he joined in M.Tech course and he is studying second year of that course.
2.5. Since the Petitioner obtained more marks than the daughter of Veerabathrasamy, a Powerful Leader of Pondicerry Origin, gave a false complaint against him. As a matter of fact, the Revenue Authorities, without conducting a proper enquiry into the matter, had cancelled his Nativity Certificate by means of an order dated 15.06.2004. In December, 2003 his semester examinations were conducted and at that point of time, he was called upon to take part in the enquiry. His father expired on 23.04.2000 and therefore, he was unable to establish the residence of his father prior to the year 1964. He sought time to take part in the enquiry, but was required to come an enquiry. Even though he prayed for further time before the authorities, the authorities ultimately came to an unilateral conclusion and proceeded to pass the impugned order, in and by which, the Deputy Collector (Rev.) South, Government of Pondicherry issued a Proceedings dated 15.06.2004, whereby and whereunder, he had cancelled the Certificate No. 4195/B/DTB/20000 dated 25.07.2000 and 3426 dated 07.06.2002 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Sub Taluk Office, Bahour, opining that the Petitioner was not eligible for SC (Origin) status under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and could be treated only as SC Migrant.
Petitioner's Contentions:
3. Assailing the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned order of cancellation of Community Certificate dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rev.) South, Government of Pondicherry, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the Enquiry Report given by the Deputy Tahsildar, Sub Taluk Office, Bahour and in fact, the Respondent had not adhered to the Principles of Natural Justice by not furnishing the Report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Sub Taluk Office, Bahour and also not obtained his explanation.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Petitioner's father was a resident of Pondicherry even prior to the year 1964 and that the Respondent had observed that the Petitioner's father is a native of Periakattupalayam, which is a enclave surrounded by Pondicherry on all sides. Therefore, it is projected on the
A. Selvaraj vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others
Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University and Others
Bhaiya Ram Munda vs. Anirudh Patar and Others
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
D.K. Yadev vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited
E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others
Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and Others
S. Pushpa and Others vs. Sivachanmugavelu and Others
State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and Others
State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Union of India and Another
Subhash Chandra and Another vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.