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

2015 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79

MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.Venkatesan – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional – Respondent
WP 18632/2014



Advocates:
['M/S S DORAISAMY', '', 'V ELANGOVAN', 'D RAJKUMAR', 'T N RAJAGOPALAN', '', 'SPL GOVT PLEADER', 'TAKES NOTICE', 'PVT NOTICE PERMITTED', 'PROOF NOT FILED', 'COUNTER FILED BY RESPDT']

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Date :: 19.01.2015

Coram ::

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam

Writ Petition No: 18632 of 2014

K. Venkatesan

S/o. Kandan

K. Agraharam

Koothapadi Post

Pennagaram Taluk

Dharmapuri District – 636 810.

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Revenue Divisional Officer

Dharmapuri District.

... Respondent

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling

for the records relating to the order of rejection passed in Na.

Ka. 8915/2013/A4 dated 20.05.2014 quash the same and direct the

respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's

children viz. S.V. Janani and S.V. Roshini that they belong to

"Kurumans (ST) Community"based upon the community certificate

already issued to the petitioner and also declaration made by

this Hon'ble Court in the order in W.P. No: 1447 of 1986 dated

03.11.1989 that the petitioner is Scheduled Tribe.

For petitioner

: M/s. S. Doraisamy

For respondent

: Mr.R.Rajeswaran

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan, J.)

By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ

petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2.

Heard Mr.S. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner called in question the impugned order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, in

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Proceedings No: Na.Ka.No. 8915/2013/A4 dated 20.05.2014, quash

the same and for a consequential direction to the respondent to

issue community certificate to his children viz. S.V.Janani and

S.V.Roshini that they belong to "Kurumans (ST) Community" based

upon the community certificate already issued to him and also

declaration made by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated

03.11.1989 in W.P.No: 1447 of 1986 that the petitioner is a

Scheduled Tribe.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to

Kurumans Coomunity, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. The

petitioner is employed as a Assistant General Manager in Bank of

Baroda, Mumbai. In all his school records, his community is

entered as Kurumans (ST). The petitioner was issued with a

community certificate dated 02.08.1985 by the respondent in a

permanent format that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community.

That certificate came to be issued based on the directions issued

by this Court on 03.11.1989 in W.P. No: 1447 of 1986. He has

also obtained a caste certificate on 31.03.2000 from the

Assistant Collector, Dharmapuri that he belongs to Kurumans (ST)

Community. On 09.12.2013, the petitioner applied for issuance of

community certificate to both his daughters. Since no order was

passed till date, he approached this Court in W.P. No. 9683 of

2014. By an order dated 03.04.2014, this Court disposed of the

writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the

petitioner's application dated 09.12.2013 and dispose of the same

on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four

weeks. Since the respondent did not pass any orders, the

petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in Cont. Petn. No: 1993 of

2014 on 13.06.2014. When the contempt petition was taken up for

hearing on 04.07.2014, the Additional Government Pleader produced

a copy of the order dated 20.05.2014 stating that the

petitioner's application is rejected on 20.05.2014. Challenging

the said rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side on the

above background pleadings and perused the records.

6. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the petitioner has app

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top