TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. SUNAYANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala seldom files a writ petition and not without reason in the instant case. The Lok Ayukta has declared the caste status of a person and has further directed the Tahsildar to act in terms of the finding so entered. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1994 6 SCC 241 has highlighted the necessity to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and other approval. The Supreme Court has even recently in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and others, 2011 11 Scale 448 approved the guidelines laid down in Kumari Madhuri Paul's case as being intrinsic to the fulfillment of fundamental rights. The State of Kerala has enacted the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (the 'Act' for short) in tune with the judgment of the Supreme Court first quoted. An application for Community Certificate has to be preferred under Section 4 of the Act and the competent authority can issue the said certificate under Section 5 of the Act. An appeal is provided against the order of the competent authority to the authority designated under Section 12 of the Act and a further revision to the government under Section 13 of the Act. The order of the government in revision is of course open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The first respondent bypassed this procedure and filed Ext. R1(m) complaint before the Lok Ayukta purportedly under Section 9 (1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. The Lok Ayukta was conscious of the fact that the issue of Community Certificate is regulated by the Act when it observed in Ext. P4 as follows:

(3.) The State of Kerala contends that the Lok Ayukta lacks jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext. P4 when the issue of Community Certificate is regulated by the Act only. The State points out that the first respondent has not even approached the Tahsildar with an application under Section 4 of the Act to complain of 'grievance' or 'maladministration' for not passing orders thereon. The term 'grievance' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 as follows: