SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 2424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
M. Obiliappa - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Adi Dravida & Tribal Welfare Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.12013 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar.
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Elumalai, Government Advocate, Mr. Venkatasubban for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.

The determination of caste in inter-caste marriages is a question of fact, and the presumption that the child has the caste of the father is rebuttable.

Headnote:

Community Certificate - Election Dispute - G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.09.2007 - Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, [(2013) 4 SCC 465] - Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, [(2012) 3 SCC 400]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner contested against the third respondent for the post of President of Perandapalli Village Panchayat, reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner alleged the third respondent's Community Certificate was false. The District Level Vigilance Committee confirmed the certificate, leading to the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating the third respondent's caste status could only be decided by the District Level Vigilance Committee.

Issues: Dispute over the authenticity of the third respondent's Community Certificate and its impact on the election.

Ratio Decidendi: The determination of caste in inter-caste marriages is a question of fact. The child's caste cannot be determined disregarding the facts of the case. The presumption that the child has the caste of the father is rebuttable.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as without merit.

ORDER :

The petitioner unsuccessfully contested against the third respondent for the election conducted in the year 2011 for the post of the President of Perandapalli Village Panchayat. The said post had been reserved for persons belonging to Schedule Castes. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Arunthathiyar community, which is notified as a Scheduled Caste. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Community Certificate of the Third Respondent dated Nil.09.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Hosur, as belonging to Adi Dravida Caste, which has been notified as a Scheduled Caste, was false. At the behest of the petitioner, the said certificate of the 3rd respondent had been sent for verification to the District Level Vigilance Committee, Krishnagiri District in terms of G.O.(2D) No.108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 12.09.2007 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department [AIR 1994 SC 94]. The District Level Vigilance Committee confirmed the community certificate of the petitioner by order dated 09.08.2014, which is impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, [(2013) 4 SCC 465], the petitioner contends that he falls within the category of 'aggrieved persons' to question the order under challenge though he is a stranger to those proceedings.

2. The second and third respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition.

3. Heard both sides and also perused the records produced by the District Vigilance Committee.

4. It is not in dispute that the father of the third respondent viz., R. Vijayakumar, belongs to Bajanthri Community and that on his marriage with Santhamma belonging to Adi Dravida caste, which has been classified as Scheduled Caste, the third respondent, viz., Shyamala is an off-spring. Relying on the caste of her mother, the third respondent had obtained a Scheduled Caste Community Certificate as belonging to Adi Dravida community from the Tahsildar, Hosur.

5. Assailing the order of the District Level Vigilance Committee confirming the Scheduled Caste Community Certificate of the petitioner, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry by the Vigilance Cell in terms of clause 10(iii) of G.O.(Ms) No.106, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (CV-I) Department, dated 15.10.2012 has not been carried out at the original place from which the third respondent hails. It is noticed from the contents of the report dated 20.02.2014 (signed on 03.03.2014) of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC / ST Vigilance Cell, Salem Division, Salem, in this case that he had made an inquiry at Kolar Gold Field, where the third respondent hails regarding the caste of her parents and had gathered information to the effect that the father of the petitioner belonged to barbar community and that her mother belonged to Adi Dravida caste. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard appears to be factually incorrect and cannot be countenanced.

6. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no finding in the impugned order regarding the disability of backwardness suffered by the petitioner. It requires to be stated that the anthropologist, viz., Mrs. S. Sumathi, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Madars, who was the one of the Members of District Level Vigilance Committee, in her report, going by the life history method as well as the documents submitted, firmly opined that the individual had substantially been following the customs practiced on her mother's side side and that her anthropological and ethnographic research fortified her claim as belonging to Adi Dravida Community. In this context, a ref







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top