High CourtsSingle Bench

S. Chandrakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 July 1994 · Citation: (1994) 2 MLJ 429

HON’BLE JUDGES
C. Shivappa, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 363 words

C. Shivappa, J.—Petition is seeking for quashing an order dated 20.3.1987 and seeking for an opportunity to prove that he belongs to

Konda Reddy community. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community called Konda Reddy and a certificate was issued

by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. On the basis of the certificate, after completion of the Pie-University education, petitioner joined medical course at

Stanley Medical College. At the instance of the 4th respondent, a letter was written to the 2nd respondent to verify whether the petitioner belongs

to Konda Reddy community. When he was pursuing his studies, a letter was served on the father of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that it

is decided to cancel the certificate of community issued by the 5th respondent. Though the petitioner engaged a counsel, the enquiry before 2nd

respondent was postponed from 22.12.1986 to 2.3.1987 and later an adjournment was promised by the 2nd respondent so as to give him an

opportunity to participate in the enquiry to establish that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Without further opportunity, an order was passed and

served on the petitioner indicating that he failed to satisfy that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the certificate issued by the 5th

respondent was cancelled.

2.

The contention of the petitioner is that he was not provided with sufficient opportunity to establish that he belongs to Konda Reddy community.

The authorities should be vigilant to verify about the caste then and there, at least within a reasonable time. That has not been done. If that is so, the

burden is on the respondents to establish that he does not belong to a particular community. In the impugned order, there is no reference that the

copy of the report was served on the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner and also supply him a copy of the report and then to decide the community to which the petitioner belongs in

accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own

costs.