V. PALANI Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUTTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 14th September, 2012 passed in Na. Ka. 1638/2010/A7 and the consequential order dated 16th December, 2014 passed in Na.Ka. No. 1496-2014-A3 passed by the respondent, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. The relevant facts, as projected by the petitioner, in brief are that the petitioner claiming to be a member of Kattunayakan (ST) community, obtained community certificate on 29th June, 1989 by the then competent officer, the Tahsildar, Pallipet. Thereafter, another community certificate in proper format was issued by the same officer on 3rd August, 1989. On the strength of the said community certificate, he was working as Head Constable (RPF), Southern Railways. On the basis of the said community certificate, he preferred an application on 17th May, 2010 to the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short "RDO"), Tiruttani for issuance of the community certificate in favour of his children, i.e., P. Selvendrakumar and P. Sandhiya, enclosing certain documents. The said application was rejected on 26th July, 2011 asking him to approach the RDO, Arakkonam. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner's son, i.e., P. Selvendrakumar preferred a writ petition, being W.P. No. 17748 of 2012, which was allowed holding that the direction to approach the RDO, Arakkonam was unsustainable. The matter was remanded back to the RDO, Tiruttani to consider the application on merits and pass orders within a period of eight weeks therefrom. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred one more application on 10th August, 2011 to the RDO, Ranipet, with which this case is not concerned.

(2.) Pursuant to the order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 17748 of 2012, the RDO, Tiruttani, once again, considered the petitioner's application and rejected the same on 14th September, 2012, holding that the petitioner belongs to Sigari community. The petitioner sent a representation, pointing out that there is no community, such as Sigari and the petitioner was granted valid, proper Kattunayakan (ST) community certificate issued by the then competent officer, Tahsildar, Pallipet, which is still valid. In that view of the matter, the case of his children be considered. The respondent vide another impugned order dated 16th December 2014, rejected the same. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the correctness of the aforestated both orders.

(3.) Thiru S. Doraisamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the certificate has been issued by the competent officer, the other officer of the same status is not competent to ignore the certificate issued in favour of the father of the children, i.e., the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the authority has not adhered to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. The enquiry was conducted in discreet manner without affording proper opportunity of hearing to explain his case.