K. Prakalathan vs The District Collector, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In this Writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector cancelling the community certificate granted to the Petitioner. It appears that earlier, the community certificate granted to the Petitioner was cancelled. The Petitioner had filed writ petition No. 9855 of 1989. Main grievance of the Petitioner at that stage was that the authority who had cancelled the community certificate, had relied upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, even though, a copy of such report, had not been furnished to the Petitioner. At the time of disposal of the said Writ petition, the counsel appearing for the present Petitioner represented for withdrawal of the writ petition and the following order was passed:

?The Petitioner has represented that he is withdrawing the writ petition without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner with a request that the copy of the report may be furnished to the Petitioner. Accordingly, a copy of the report of the enquiring authority, viz.. the Revenue Divisional Officer may be furnished to the Petitioner, with these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

It is not disputed that after the aforesaid order was passed, a copy of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer had been furnished to the Petitioner and there was a fresh enquiry before the Collector and the Collector has again cancelled the community certificate.

learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , the question of determining about the validity of the community certificate should have been decided by the committee and not by the Collector himself and as such, the decision of the Collector must be taken to be without jurisdiction.

learned Counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents-employer, submitted that since the High Court had remanded the matter to the Collector in spite of the decision of the Supreme Court, the subsequent order of the Collector which was passed after following the principles of natural justice, cannot be assailed on that score.

A perusal of the earlier order indicates that no direction had been given by the High Court that the matter should be redetermined by the Collector and as such, it cannot be said that there was a specific direction that the Collector was to re-enquire into the matter. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited above, there cannot be any doubt that question relating to validity of the community certificate can be considered by the committee and not by the Collector.

Similar view has been taken by learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.8.2001 in Writ Petition No. 16904 of 1995 (N. Sethuram v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District and Ors.).

Following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the order of the learned single Judge, I am of the view that the subsequent order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction and the matter has to be re-determined by the appropriate authority namely the committee constituted for the purpose. Since the matter is urgent, I direct that the Petitioner shall appear before the appropriate district committee on 5.11.2001 on which date, an appropriate date shall be fixed and the matter shall be re-decided by the committee after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It goes without saying that the committee shall take a fresh decision, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any observations made by the Collector in the earlier order or by the fact that the High Court has remanded the matter for fresh determination. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1996 are closed.