V.S. Gobinath vs The District Collector, Madurai District

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—The petitioner is a Railway employee. A certificate was issued in his favour on 8.4.1970 by Tahsildar, Madurai South

Taluk, certifying that he belongs to ''Kammara'' community, which was classified as Scheduled Tribe. This certificate seems to have been

countersigned by the Village Munsif as also the Revenue Inspector.

The petitioner probably wanted to pursue his further studies in the Law College and therefore, applied for the admission and there he pressed

into service the said certificate dated 8.4.1970. However, the Law College authorities probably directed him to file a certificate signed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer. This happened on 25.7.1994.

3.The petitioner therefore went before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and applied for a certificate. The application seems to have been

rejected by the order dated 2.1.1995. In the same order however there is a reference that his original certificate dated 8.4.1970 would also stand

cancelled and that there would be criminal proceedings initiated against him on the allegation that he has cheated the Government by claiming the

status of Scheduled Tribe when in fact he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe. In the findings, the Collector, who has passed that order, suggests

that the petitioner could not state about the details regarding the community. It has also been found by him that his father Srinivasalu was recorded

as a Hindu to begin with and it is only in 1967 that his community was registered as ''Kammara'' which is a Scheduled Tribe. From all this, the

Collector came to the conclusion that the certificate was not liable to be granted and also cancelled the certificate dated 8.4.1970.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan points out that there was no question of cancellation of the original certificate granted

by the Tahsildar dated 8.4.1970, as all that the petitioner had wanted was a new certificate duly signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It did

not mean that his certificate was automatically invalidated merely because he applied for a new certificate. Learned counsel points out that on the

day when the certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar had the authority to issue such certificate and such authority was lost by the

Tahsildar''s Office only with effect from 11.11.1989. The learned counsel further points out that there was no opportunity given to the petitioner by

issuing a show cause notice regarding the cancellation of the certificate.

5.As against this, learned Government Pleader supported the order suggesting that in fact the petitioner did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe

Community and that the Collector had recorded a finding of fact and that this court should not go into the same.

6.In the landmark judgment of by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and

others, the Apex Court had given certain guidelines for forming the Caste Scrutiny Committee, consisting of the experts. These Committees were

to go into the question of verification of the certificates newly granted and also in the matter of cancellation of the certificates. Now it is obvious

that, that judgment has come on 2.9.1994 while, the present order of the Collector had been passed on 2.1.1995.

7.It is true that in the State of Tamil Nadu no such Caste Scrutiny Committees were available at the time when the Collector passed this order.

However, that cannot take out the rigour of the Supreme Court''s judgment. The said Committee came into existence somewhere in the year 1997

and today also such a Scrutiny Committee is working in the State of Tamil Nadu . Therefore, instead of going into the question of the correctness

of the order, it would be better if the certificate, which has been cancelled by the Collector even without issuing a show cause notice, is put before

the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is presently working in the State of Tamil Nadu. I am taking this view particularly because this petitioner was

not given an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice that the certificate dated 8.4.1970 otherwise valid was also going to be cancelled. In fact,

there does not appear to be any opportunity having been given to the petitioner to even know that the Collector intended to cancel the certificate.

It will be therefore better that the matter is decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted for that purpose. The Caste Scrutiny Committee

will now go into the correctness or otherwise of the certificate dated 8.4.1970 and would decide as to whether the petitioner''s claim that he

belongs to ''Kammara'' community is correct or not after giving the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The Government Pleader has

undertaken to make a reference to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms of the judgment of this court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee will be

well advised to dispose of the matter within six months after it has been received by the same. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Caste

Scrutiny Committee and will not try to create any impediments in the way of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by obtaining unnecessary

adjournments.

8.With these directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. Needless to mention that the direction regarding the prosecution of the petitioner shall be

dealt with only in accordance with the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Consequently, connected W.M.P is closed. No costs.