The Revenue Divisional Officer vs M. Parasuraman

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The correctness of the order dated 13.07.2007 made in W.P. No. 30957 of 2004 is put in issue in this appeal.

In the writ petition, the respondent herein moved the Court for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur, appellant herein dated 01.10.2004 and direct him to issue permanent community certificate of Kattunaicken to his

children. The said claim was made by the writ petitioner on the basis that he belonged to Kattunaicken community, which is listed as one of the

Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Tamil Nadu and the writ petitioner was also granted community certificate by the Tahsildar, Arakonam

by his proceedings dated 11.12.1974 as he belongs to the Kattunaiken community and based on the said certificate, the writ petitioner has been

appointed in the Railway and worked as Senior Technician. On 01.09.2003, the writ petitioner has submitted an application enclosing documents

such as community certificate issued to him and the copy of the service record issued by the employer of the writ petitioner and the copy of the

community certificate dated 21.07.1996 issued to the writ petitioner''s brother''s son to the respondent in order to support his claim that the

children of the writ petitioner are entitled to community certificate that they belong to Kattunaicken community. However while considering the

application for issuance of community certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur has directed the writ petitioner to appear for an

enquiry on 29.09.2003. During enquiry, the writ petitioner submitted that Vellithankiupuram, hamalet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam

Taluk was his native place and at present, he is residing at Periakuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk. He further submitted that he was working as

Technician in Southern Railway and he came to Thiruvallur Taluk from his native during 1972 and his father was doing hunting and painting the

vessels. He also submitted that he married one Malliga, who is the daughter of his uncle. One Shankar, who is the son of his wife''s elder sister was

also issued with the community certificate. The writ petitioner''s daughter has been married to one Panneerselvam, S/o Arujunan and they are

residing at Pichatur, Andhra pradesh and that his son-in-law has obtained Kattunaicken community certificate from the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu. As

the writ petitioner has stated that his native was Vallithankupuram, hamlet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam Taluk, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Ranipet was addressed to ascertain the actual community of the writ petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, has reported that

the petitioner''s father and his predecessors are belong to ""Vettaikara Sigari"" community and hence, the writ petitioner Parasuraman also belongs to

Vettaikara Sigari"" community. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, has

rejected the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate to the writ petitioner''s children that they belong to Kattunaiken

community. That order is put in issue before the writ court, which by following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Kandasamy Vs.

Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, has observed that since the writ petitioner''s community certificate has not been cancelled, the siblings have

also to be issued the community certificate as sought for by the writ petitioner and further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur to

issue community certificate to the writ petitioner''s children as ""Kattunaicken community"" within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. That order is carried on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, revealed that

the writ petitioner''s predecessor belonged to Vettaikara Sigari community. Hence, the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of community

certificate as Kattunaicken to his children is rejected. Even assuming that the order is not legally sustainable, for non furnishing of the report of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, and non consideration of certain other evidence in favour of the writ petitioner, the Court should not have

directed the authorities to grant community certificate. On the other hand, the Court should have directed the authorities to reconsider the issue by

giving an opportunity.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, relying on the decision reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 524 (V.

Krishnan and Anr., Chennai v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to The Collector of Chennai and

Ors.), has contended that such a direction can very well be issued on the material available on record, which clearly shows that the authorities have

committed a grave error in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate. When the father''s certificate has not been

cancelled and very much in force, the order directing the authority to issue community certificate to the children of the writ petitioner can well be

legally sustainable. Much reliance has been placed in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Division Bench.

Heard the argument of the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Before going into the facts of the case, we will make the legal position clear. The authorities cited before the Court cannot be taken as a binding

precedent when there is one additional factor or a different factor is in existence from the facts of the cited case. If such factors are in existence,

that makes a ocean of difference between the cited case and the case on hand. Usual reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court

reported in Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, .

Even otherwise, in the cited case, it is not the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that where ever the father has the community

certificate of his own stating that he belongs to a particular community, the son should be given the certificate of same community without any

enquiry.

Here, on the basis of the statement made at the time of enquiry that the Writ petitioner is a native of Vellithankipuram, hamlet of

Balakrishnapuram village, Arakonam, a responsible officer of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry and found that he

does not belong to the community of Kattunaicken and he belongs to Vettaikara Sigari. Ofcourse it is true that the report has not been furnished to

the writ petitioner, to rebut or place any other materials in support of his claim. The father''s community certificate cannot be regarded as a sole

criteria for granting the certificate.

On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that such a positive direction cannot be given, because often the persons, who do not

belong to particular scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe community have come to the Court and obtain certain order with some materials, which

virtually takes away the benefits granted to the real Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribe people to bring them on par with the other communities.

Hence in the case of community certificate, particularly, seeking for the relief of the schedule caste and scheduled Tribe, the Court should be

doubly cautious and should not venture to take the role of the authorities concerned and decide the issue, which is purely within the domain of

experts in the field, who are more informed about the anthropology prevailing in the particular area. That is the reason the Supreme Court has given

various direction in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, .

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the order impugned in the appeal has to be set aside and the same is set aside. However,

the matter is remitted back to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur to give the writ petitioner an opportunity by placing materials with which

reliance has been placed for non suiting him and also giving him an opportunity to rebut the same by placing relevant materials, which are available

with the respondent/writ petitioner. The appellant also directed to complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order.

The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.