Veerappa v. The Revenue Divisional Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR S.Veerappa ... Petitioner Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the online rejection ordre in Application Numbers in TN-5202406033785 [Veerappa] ; TN - 5202406035644 [Anandkumar] and TN-5202406034757 [Madhankumar] dated NIL, quash the same and direct the respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner and his children namely [1] Anandkumar, [2]Madhankumar and [3]Prathiba that they belong to Kurichchan [ST] community based upon the community certificate already issued to the petitioner's father own brother U.Muniappa.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.G.Nanmaran, Spl.GP
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,] (1)Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
(2)The present writ petition is filed to quash the orders dated Nil passed by the respondent rejecting the online application submitted by the petitioner seeking for issuance of the Community Certificate and to direct the respondent to issue the Community Certificate to the petitioner and his children stating that they belong to Kurichchan [ST] Community based upon the community certificate already issued to the paternal uncle of the petitioner.
(3)The petitioner's grievance is that his online application for issuance of community certificate was rejected without assigning any reason. The petitioner also relied upon the Certificate which was issued to his paternal uncle.
(4)This Court in similar cases, has allowed the writ petitions challenging the
order where the applications applied through online for community certificates were rejected mechanically for reasons which no one can understand. In this case also, the impugned orders reads as follows:-''The applicant not enclosed community proof of blood relationship. Hence the petition has been rejected'' ; ''Rejected the applicant not attached proper documents family tree and attached certificate not latest our family'' ; and ''the applicant not submitted ST proof certificate and proper family tree and latest original certificate so rejected.'' (5)The respondent is required to conduct an enquiry giving sufficient opportunity to the person even if the application is not supported by sufficient documents or materials.
(6)Following the judgments of this Court in several cases, particularly, in a batch of cases in WP.Nos.35555, 35558 and 35559/2023 dated 07.02.2024, this Court finds that the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
(7)Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders dated Nil passed by the respondent stand quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the online applications submitted by the petitioner
and his children after holding a field enquiry and consider the documents that are filed in support of the applications as directed by this Court in several earlier orders. A speaking order shall be passed by the respondent after holding enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [S.S.S.R., J.] [N.S., J.] 26.06.2024 AP Internet : Yes To The Revenue Divisional Officer Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
S.S. SUNDAR, J., and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.,
AP 26.06.2024