M. Selvarajan vs The District Collector and The Revenue Divisional Officer

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 16.05.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he belongs

to Hindu Malai Kuravan, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.

On direction, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are briefly stated hereunder:

According to the petitioner, he belongs to Hindu Malaikuravan community which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes. He applied for

community certificate before the second respondent by submitting an application dated 20.08.1992. Along with that application, he produced

number of documents to prove that he belongs to Malaikuravan community. The second respondent conducted an enquiry and ultimately directed

him to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Sivagangai to issue community certitificate. After enquiry, again he was asked to approach the authority at Dindigul to get community certificate. In

such circumstance, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14944 of 1994 before this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus to issue community certificate to him

indicating that he belongs to Malaikuravan community. By an order dated 22.09.1995, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the respondents, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to place all documents before the second respondent and issue further direction

to the second respondent to consider all the materials and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of presentation of such

documents. By order dated 30.11.1995, the second respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Kuravan community and

not ''Malaikuravan'' and the same comes under new Adi-Dravida list. Hence he was directed to approach the Tahsildar to get community

certificate. Against the said order, he filed W.P.No.6810 of 1996 before this Court. Ultimately the matter came up before D. Murugesan,J., and

by an order dated 7.2.2002, after holding that the reason given by the second respondent is totally unsustainable, set aside the order and

remanded back to the second respondent. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the second respondent and produced

documents as directed by this Court. The second respondent ignoring the observation and findings of this Court, passed the impugned order dated

16.5.2002 holding that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu Malaikuravan community. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice the specific observations/direction of this Court dated 7.2.2002. It is

relevant to refer the order of the learned Judge. It is seen that after considering the details furnished, materials placed, learned Judge has issued the

following direction:--

... Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for furnishing the copies of the

materials made during the discreet enquiry to the petitioner and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, pass orders on merits duly taking into

consideration of the observations made in this order with regard to the interpretation placed by the second respondent over the names of the

grandfather and father of the petitioner viz., Kannappan alias Periyamalai Kuravan and Muthumalai Kuravan as well as the instructions issued by

the Government in letter dated 8.3.1983. Such orders shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed...."".

Let me consider the impugned order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

It is clear from paragraph 1 of the impugned order that the second respondent is very well aware of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.

Nos. 6810 of 1996 and 7787 of 1999 dated 7.2.2002. It is further clear from the paragraph 2 that the petitioner was given further opportunity. It

is also clear that pursuant to such direction, the petitioner appeared, made a statement and also furnished materials in the form of documents in

support of his claim for community certificate. After referring that the statement of the petitioner was taken and documents filed, the second

respondent passed the following cryptic order:

@ tpz;zg;gjhuhplk; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l tprhuizapd; mog;gilapYk;;. nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l tphpthd tprhuizapd; mog;gilapy; kDjhuu; jpU.bry;tuh$;. vd;gth;

@,e;J kiyf;Fwtd;@ tFg;gpdir; rhh;e;jth; ,y;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ/@

I have already referred to the specific direction of this Court dated 7.2.2002. It is not the case of the second respondent that the petitioner has

not furnished acceptable evidence in support of his claim. Inspite of positive direction by this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner with

reference to the documents produced earlier and at the time of further enquiry, the impugned order does not disclose the details regarding the

statement of the petitioner and the documents filed by him. Like wise it is not clear how the second respondent considered the documents and

rejected the same. In a matter like this, when the officer like the second respondent is empowered to consider and pass appropriate orders, he/she

is expected to consider and pass considered order giving reason for rejection or acceptance. It is very unfortunate that the second respondent who

is aware of the positive direction by this Court dated 7.2.2002, has passed the present impugned order without giving any reason except saying

that ""detailed enquiry was conducted"". The method and procedure adopted by the second respondent cannot be appreciated. Because of the

cryptic order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner is forced to approach this Court once again. As observed in many decisions relating

to issuance of community certificate, it is but proper for the concerned authority to consider all the aspects in detail and arrive at a conclusion one

way or other giving sufficient reasons/reason, as stated earlier. Inspite of the specific direction of this Court dated 7.2.2002, the second respondent

once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a non-speaking order. The said order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned

order of the second respondent dated 16.5.2002 is quashed and the matter is once again remitted to the second respondent for fresh disposal. The

second respondent is directed to consider the entire materials and pass speaking order giving adequate reasons with reference to the materials

placed before it, ie the statement of the petitioner and the supporting documents produced, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

of the copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.