Administrative rejection orders must be reasoned and speaking for judicial review.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.13232 of 2026 Sidhappan D.No.3/176, Thoppur Railway Station Sekkarapatti Kadayampatti Salem-636 352 : Petitioner Vs

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the petitioner’s application No.TN-5202504169993 dated 16.4.2025 rejected on 14.2.2026 by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to issue ST Kurumans community certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the certificate dated 7.4.2025 issued to his own sister Ms.Shantha and the certificate issued to his cousin brother Mr.Ulagappan and the proceedings of the State Level scrutiny committee dated 16.10.2023 in respect of his certificate.

For Petitioner : Ms.K.Nithyashree For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14.02.2026, passed by the first respondent, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for issuing community certificate. The reason for rejection of the application is that the genuineness certificate issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in respect of close blood relatives relied upon by the petitioner has not been enclosed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that copies of such certificates issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee are also available on record, but, notwithstanding the same, the respondents have rejected the application.

3. Learned State Counsel would fairly submit that no reason has been assigned in the order of rejection and, therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the petition.

4. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, we find that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking one and the authority has not assigned any reason as to why the application has been rejected. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order dated

14.02.2026 only on this ground.

5. Accordingly, the order dated 14.02.2026 is hereby set aside.

The competent authority is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The competent authority shall consider the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.