A.T.Sathyanarayanan v. The Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-Iii
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and W.M.P.Nos.8309 and 8310 of 2021 A.T.Sathyanarayanan S/o.Thirumalai ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee - III Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Namakkal Kavingar Maligai Secretariat Chennai 600 009 rep. by its Chairman 2.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai
3. (R3 deleted vide order dt.26.04.2021 made in W.P.No.7776/2021 by NKKJ, TVTSJ) 4.The District Collector Chennai District, Chennai
5.The Tahsildar Saidapet, Chennai (R4 and R5 suomotu impleaded vide order dt.26.04.2021 made in WP.No.
7776/2021 by NKKJ, TVTSJ) ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee - III in proceedings No.8166/CV-6/2012-12 dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraiswamy For Respondents : Mr.UM.Ravichandran Spl. Govt.Pleader - R1, 4 & 5 Mr.R.Karthikeyan - R2 R3- deleted vide order dt.26/4/2021
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee - III in proceedings No.8166/CV-6/2012-12 dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent
and quash the same.
2. The petitioner herein was issued with a Community Certificate, certifying that he belongs to Kondareddis community, which is classified as Scheduled Tribe Community. When the said certificate came up for scrutiny before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, it was concluded that the Kondareddis (Scheduled Tribe) Community Certificate held by the petitioner herein is not correct. Consequently, the State Level Scrutiny Committee cancelled the said Community Certificate vide its order dated 25.02.2021. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 25.02.2021, during which period, there were Covid restrictions and the petitioner, being a Senior Citizen, could not attend the proceedings.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had come to a conclusion that the petitioner's community certificate was invalid based
on the Anthropologist's report and several other evidences and therefore, no interference is required to the order of the Committee.
5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a similar circumstance, in the case of M.Rangan Vs. the Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee-II, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai, in batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.10006 of 2021, etc. batch, when an enquiry was conducted by the State Level Scrutiny committee during the Covid restrictions period, had interfered with the order passed therein and set aside the same. Though the order was set aside, it was held therein that the restoration of the petitioner's community certificate, will not entitle his legal heirs to claim similar certificates, but, rather they are required to establish their communal status on their own before the authority concerned. The said order reads as follows:- "All these cases relate to cancellation of community certificates by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, where the petitioners were called for enquiry during the period when the Covid restrictions were in force. The following tabulation would demonstrate the facts that are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions:- WP.No.
Name of the petitioner Issua nce of certifi Date of Appointment Date of Superannuation Date of SLSC Enquiry Date of the order of SLSC
cate 10006/2021 Rangan 1976 1977 30.06.2016 (Sanctioned full pension and all benefits) December 02.02.2021 10009/2021 Krishnan 1976 1977 31.08.2014 (Sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 16.12.2020 02.02.2021 10013/2021 Thandugan 1974 1975 30.04.2015 (getting only provisional pension) 07.12.2020 04.01.2021 10017/2021 P.E.Shanmugam 1980 1980 31.03.2017 (getting only provisional pension) 16.11.2020 25.01.2021 16.12.2020 10023/2021 Sarojini 1976 1978 31.05.2015 (getting only provisional pension) 26.11.2020 05.02.2021 06.12.2020 10975/2021 N. Lakshmikanthan 1972 1981 31.10.2013 11.08.1988 11.01.2021 10.08.2005 13291/2021 Jayanthi Rajan 1982 1982 31.05.2019 (getting only provisional pension) 26.11.2020 13.01.2021 06.12.2020 13295/2021 P.V.Ponnusamy 1976 1977 30.04.2013 (sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 16.12.2020 19.01.2021 13300/2021 M.Vedanayaki 1978 1979 30.04.2012 (sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 25.11.2020 08.02.2021 16.12.2020 13302/2021 R.Rajasulochana 1979 1984 31.05.2019 (sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 16.12.2020 02.02.2021
13594/2021 V.Kamala 1980 1980 04.01.2020 (VRS) (sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 16.12.2020 02.02.2021 19126/2021 P.Nirmala 1982 1982 30.06.2020 (provisional pension paid but, stopped after SLSC order) July 2021 05.08.2021 19128/2021 S.Mathivanan 1982 1982 31.03.2017 (getting only provisional pension 19.07.2021 13.08.2021 12.08.2021 22355/2021 C.Jeyaprakasam 1976 1977 31.01.2014 27.01.2021 05.08.2021 26784/2021 R.Subbian 1976 1976 31.10.2014 25.11.2020 17.02.2021 (sanctioned full pension and all benefits) 16.12.2020
2. From the Tabulation, it could be seen that all the petitioners in the above writ petitions have attained superannuation between 2012 and 2020 before the cancellation of certificates issued to them. Though the petitioners urged several contentions, we find that it may not be necessary for us to go into all those contentions, since we find that the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity in the conduct of enquiry. Admittedly, all the petitioners were called for enquiry during November, December 2020, January 2021 and July 2021. Admittedly, during these periods either lock down or restrictions on movement were in place. All the petitioners had superannuated by that time and they were admittedly Senior Citizens. General advisories were issued by the Government of India advising Senior citizens not to venture out.
After all these enquiries have been pending for years and we are unable to see any justification for the hurried manner in which, the enquiries have been conducted during November, December, 2020 and the orders were passed during January and February, 2021. Even in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl.
Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the petitioners should be given a fair opportunity to make their representations before the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
3. We find that the absence of opportunity really vitiates all the reports of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
4. On similar set of facts, in L.Balasubramanian Vs. The State Level Scrutiny Committee and others [WP.No.6122 of 2021 dated 08.01.2025] this Court held as follows:- "8. As we have adverted to, the notice was issued on 16.11.2020 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 14.12.2020. Admittedly the COVID restrictions were in place during the months of November and December 2020. There was a lock-down announced till 31.12.2020 under G.O.(Ms) No.541, Revenue and Disaster Management (D.M.IV) Department, dated 30.09.2020 and large scale restrictions were there and persons above 60 years of age and persons with co-morbidities were advised to stay at home. It is in this situation the Committee had gone ahead with the enquiry rejecting the request for adjournment made by the petitioner.
9. We therefore find that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. There was no such tearing urgency for the Committee to go ahead with the determination as the employee had retired by then and the Railways had not paid him the retiral benefits. We must point out that this court in the year 2000 directed an enquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the committee swung in to action only in the year 2016 after 16 years. It is the fundamental principles of law that a person whose certificate is sought to be cancelled should be given a fair opportunity by the Committee, which takes up the enquiry. Absence of reasonable
opportunity itself is a good ground to set aside the proceedings of the Committee.
10. We therefore conclude that the action of the Committee in proceeding with the enquiry when COVID restrictions were in place, that too, without hearing the petitioner has considerably prejudiced the cause of the petitioner and therefore the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 02.02.2021 impugned in the Writ Petition will stand set aside.
11. Normally we should direct the State Level Scrutiny Committee to take up the matter again and re-determine the issue after hearing the petitioner. But, we find that no useful purpose will be served by directing such re-enquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired on 31.07.2016 itself. Therefore, the determination of the genuineness of his community would only be academic. As already pointed out though a Division Bench of this Court as early as on 22.11.2000 directed reenquiry by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the Committee did not take up the issue till 2016. The District Level Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 24.11.2016 i.e., after the retirement of the petitioner. We therefore do not think it would be proper for us to direct an inquiry in to the issue at this distant point of time."
5. We therefore do not propose to remit the matters to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Hence, we have no other option to set aside all the orders in the impugned writ petitions. We however make it clear that the certificates which have been issued to the petitioners will not form the basis for any further certificates in favour of the petitioners' children or grand-children. If the children or grand-children or any other blood relatives of the petitioners want to apply for a certificate to the effect that they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, they will have to establish the fact that
they belong to a Scheduled Tribe Community de hors the certificate issued to the petitioners.
6. In WP.Nos.10013, 10017, 10023, 13291, 19126 and 22355 of 2021, there will be a direction to the respective employers to pay full pension and disburse the retiral benefits to the respective petitioners, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. All the petitioners will surrender their original certificates to the concerned District Collector's Office, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Additional Government Pleader will also instruct the concerned District Collectors to ensure surrender. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also closed."
6. The aforesaid decision in the batch of Writ Petitions clearly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Admittedly, the enquiry conducted preceding the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 was on 18.07.2020, during which period there were Covid restrictions. While that being so, the State Level Scrutiny Committee was totally partial and unjustified in recording the absence of the petitioner, who was a senior citizen and passing an ex-parte order. As such , the conclusion arrived at by the State Level Scrutiny Committee may warrant interference in the light of the decision in M.Rangan's case cited supra.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 in
Proceedings No.8166/CV-6/2012-12 dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent is set aside. However, it is made clear that the community certificate issued to the petitioner herein, shall not form the basis for the children / grand children or other blood relatives, to claim their communal status and that they will have to establish their communal status dehors the certificate issued to the petitioner herein. 8.The 2nd respondent / the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai, will disburse the retiral benefits of the petitioner, including pension, if any, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [R.S.V, J.] 10.12.2025 kas Index: Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking Order
To.
1.The Chairman The Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny Committee - III Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department Namakkal Kavingar Maligai Secretariat Chennai 600 009 2.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai 3.The District Collector Chennai District, Chennai 4.The Tahsildar Saidapet, Chennai
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
kas and W.M.P.Nos.8309 and 8310 of 2021 10.12.2025