M KALIMUTHU Vs. COLLECTOR COIMBATORE DISTRICT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the order of the District Collector dated 31.12.1997 cancelling the community certificate obtained by him.

(2.) PETITIONER had obtained a community certificate from the Tahsildar dated 23.8.1973 showing that he belongs to 'Puthirai Vannan' community, which is one of the communities coming under the category of Scheduled Castes. On the basis of certain complaints that the petitioner had obtained the community certificate on misrepresentation, petitioner was called upon the appear for an enquiry and was served with a show cause notice dated 10.1.1995 and he appeared before the District Collector on 7.2.1995 and deposed before him. The District Collector also conducted a personal enquiry on 22.12.1997. After considering the report and after considering the materials placed in the enquiry held by him, he found that the petitioner has not produced any document whatsoever to establish that he belongs to Puthirai Vannan community and consequently found that the petitioner had obtained the certificates dated 24.8.1973, 26.3.1980 and 5.8.1980 by misrepresentation for getting the concessions given by the Government to Scheduled Caste persons and therefore, cancelled all those certificates. The writ petition is against this order.

(3.) IT is seen that the question that a person belongs to a particular caste or community or religion is basically a factual determination. The burden of establishing a social status is always on the person claiming such a status. The Supreme Court, in DIRECTOR OF TRIBUNAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. LAVETI GIRI (A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1506), in clear terms, held as follows: "The High Court wrongly caused the burden of proof on the Department when it squarely rested upon the candidate to prove his caste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed under the rules. IT is the duty of the certificate issuing authority to satisfy himself after due verification whether the candidates belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Government. Though the father managed to gain falsely social status as Tribe and wrongfully and unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of the benefit of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive. IT is not uncommon to corner such benefits because of connivance of officers and it is a known fact that the tribe of such officers has grown over years because the social crimes committed by them is either ignored by the superiors of their class or because they have a protective umbrella from their higher ups." "In order to establish whether a particular candidate belong to any of the Scheduled Tribe/group diverse ethnic or cultural identities were mentioned. In Annexure I of the G.O. the candidates are required to furnish the particulars prescribed therein. The competent officer was to verify and satisfy himself of the true social status of the candidate before issuing the social status certificate." "We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted a traditional approach of placing burden of proof of social status founded on the entries in Government record etc. and called upon the State to rebut it on the touch-stone of Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. Burden of proof of social status is always on the person who propounds it to seek constitutional socio-economic advantages. IT is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. The criteria to obtain caste certificate from Nativit Tahsildar/Mandar Revenue Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer is relevant for the reason that Scheduled Tribes generally live in forest areas, mountainous regions and specified pockets and will be known to local officers or easily accessible for verification." (emphasis added) Each social status claim has to be independently considered. Simply because the father had been issued with certificates, it does not automatically entail his other relatives to get the certificates. As has been noticed by the Backward Class Commission and the Supreme Court, there are large scale fake claims and many go unnoticed without verification. Time has come to evolve a better system even at the initial stage of issue of certificates with the assistance of a team of officials, followed by verification. IT is high time that the Government of Tamil Nadu has the matter examined and bring about a legislation with necessary guidelines and rules for identification, examination, verification and the consequence of bogus claims. In the words of their lordships in the case referred to above, 'so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the Constitutional objective of rendering socio-economic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39." Normally, the High Court will not interfere with the orders under Article 226 on factual findngs as an appellate authorty. The Government Order provides for an appeal to the State Level Committee. Hence, the petitioners are to be given liberty to move the appellate authority.