Tmt. Logaminnala, v. The Revenue Divisional

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.09.2015 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN W.P. No.27664 of 2015 1.

Logaminnala 2.

Chikkaiyan 3.

Harish 4.

Indumathi 5.

Ruba ... Petitioners Vs.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of rejection passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.6245/2013/A4 dated 10.07.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioners that they belong to Kurumans (ST) community based upon the community certificate already issued to the first petitioner's father, brothers and close relatives.

For petitioners : Mr. S. Doraisamy For respondent : Mr. N. Sakthivel, Government Advocate

ORDER

(delivered by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2.

The first petitioner, who is the mother of the other petitioners, has made an application to the respondent on 10th July 2013, seeking Kurumans (ST) community certificate to herself and other petitioners. The respondent, after holding an enquiry and on consideration of the documents submitted by the first petitioner in support of her claim, vide order dated 10th July 2015, rejected the first petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioners belong only to Kurumba community and not Kurumans community. The legality and validity of the said order of rejection are assailed in this writ petition. Besides, a direction is also sought to the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioners that they belong to Kurumans (ST) community, based upon the community certificate already issued to the first petitioner's father, brothers and close relatives.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the order dated 10th July 2015 sought to be impugned in this writ petition, is decided to have been recalled for the purpose of conducting a detailed enquiry after verifying all the certificates in accordance with the judicial pronouncements as well as the relevant Government Orders in this regard. Thus, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter. 4.

In view of the aforestated submission made by the learned Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. 5.

In view of the foregoing, the respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of six weeks, as aforestated and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. 6.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforestated direction. Costs made easy.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

cad To The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri.

+1cc to M/s.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.49367 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.49648 W.P. No.27664 of 2015 KJI(CO) CA(30/09/2015)