M VEERAPATHIRAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. S.P.Prabhakaran, learned Addl. Government Pleader, is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner claims to belong to 'Kurumans' a Scheduled Tribe Community. The petitioner preferred an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2011 and 2012, which has been received by the office of the 1st respondent on 23.6.2011, for his three children, viz., Kumaresan, Priyanka and Poornima. The same was followed by another representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 18.1.2013 and further representation on 8.6.2013. The petitioner has also forwarded a representation to the District Collector with regard to issuance of Community Certificate for his children on 8.6.2013, which has also been acknowledged. Though the Revenue Divisional Officer has forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Tahsildar , Pennagaram on 25.6.2013 to conduct enquiry and submit a report, till date no enquiry has been conducted and no orders have been passed on his application. The petitioner has further averred that he has submitted his caste certificate as document in support of his claim of caste certificate for his children, which is still valid. Further, the petitioner's father, being the President of the Dharmapuri Kurumans Sangam, has also been made a member of the Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Board by G.O. No.105, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Dept., dated 12.9.96. Inspite of submission of the above documents, the respondent has not passed any order on the application made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondent, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Tahsildar has issued community certificate to the petitioner, as laid down by this Court in C.V.Kalaivanan Vs The Sub-Collector, Mettur Dam, Salem District, 2010 3 CTC 673, unless the same is cancelled in accordance with law, the application for community certificate for the children of the petitioner cannot be rejected and further the certificate produced by the petitioner was issued prior to the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL, 1995 AIR(SC) 94. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in R.Kandasamy Vs Chief Engineer, 1997 7 JT 660, wherein the Government by G.O. Ms. No.2137 dated 11.11.89 directed that community certificate shall be issued only by the Revenue Divisional Officer, meaning thereby, that certificates issued prior to 11.11.1989 were not called into question and they were treated to be valid. Therefore, learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition.