M.Sankar v. The Revenue Divisionanl Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN M.Sankar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.427 of 2026 M.Sampath .. Petitioner in W.P.No.436 of 2026 -vsThe Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
.. Respondent in both WPs.
Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - (i) W.P.No.427/2026 - to call for the records relating to the online rejection order in Application Numbers in TN-5202510176123 (S.Boomika), TN-5202510181122 (S.Ragul) and TN-5202510181185 (S.Sadhana) dated Nil on the file of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the children of the petitioner namely, S.Boomika, S.Ragul and S.Sadhana that they belong to Kaurumans (ST) Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the petitioner, his father K.Murugesan and
his sister M.Sangeetha; and (ii) W.P.No.436/2026 - to call for the records relating to the online rejection order in Application Numbers in TN-5202510182258 (S.Tharun) dated Nil on the file of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's son namely, S.Tharun that he belongs to Kurumans (ST) Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the petitioner, his wife, M.Sangeetha and his daughter S.Priyatharshini.
For Petitioner in both WPs.
:
Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent in both WPs.
:
Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Govt. Advocate * * * * *
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is, even though all other family members of the family including the parents are possessed of the community certificate, the application made by the petitioners has been rejected without assigning any reason and the order is completely non-speaking as regards reason of rejection.
2. Learned State counsel would fairly submit that whatever may be the reason for rejection, the same does not find place in the order of rejection and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the case.
3. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, as the impugned order is completely non-speaking and does not assign any reason as to why the application was rejected, we are inclined to set aside the orders of rejection only on this ground.
4. Accordingly, the orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside. The competent authority is directed to pass a reasoned order clearly stating, though in brief, the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioners.
5. Before parting with the case, taking into consideration that such single line orders without assigning any reason are being passed by the authorities in the matter of claim for issuance of community certificate, which confers valuable right to the person, if he belongs to
a particular scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community, much more application of mind is required to be reflected while dealing with such application. It requires due and proper application of mind and passing of an order, one way or the other, recording brief reasons. We consider it appropriate to issue a general direction that all authorities dealing with application for issuance of community certificate in the State are obliged to record reasons, though in brief, as to why the application was rejected. This will only make the remedy of appeal efficacious and not illusionary.
6. Moreover, to make a process seamless, efficient and speedy, we also direct the respondent authority of the State, to ensure that the orders so passed are uploaded in their web-portal. This will expedite the process of decision-making and finalise the claim for grant of community certificate as early as possible. It would only add fairness to the process of decision-making that after collection of necessary information/report from other officers, if the authority is of the prima facie view that the application is liable to be rejected, at least one opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the applicant.
Petitions are allowed, with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 04.02.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sra) 04.02.2026