J RAJAN BABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No. 4475 of 2001 dated 12.2.2004.

(2.) EVEN before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant sought to misdirect the Court as if the issue has been covered by another Division Bench Judgment and tried to slip away as done before the learned Single Judge as if the issue has been covered by another Division Bench Judgment. After going through the judgment of the learned single Judge, this Court cautioned the counsel for the appellant that if the facts of the case with which reliance has been made by the counsel for the appellant are not similar to the facts of the present case, this Court would view the matter seriously and impose a heavy cost. EVEN thereafter, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant stuck his own position that the matter is covered by the other Division Bench Judgment. In order to see whether the issue is covered by the said judgment, we are of the view that necessary facts which are required for the disposal of the case has to be stated. EVEN prior to that we make it clear that we are not oblivious of the facts that the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC 94) has given certain direction. Pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court in the Madhuri Patil's case certain committee has been constituted drawing one of the members from anthropology department so as to go into the correctness of the claim made by the persons like appellant whether they belong to scheduled tribe community. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, it is not so. The issue before the learned single Judge was whether the certificate produced by the appellant was issued by the Tahsildar as claimed by the appellant. It has been found on facts that it is not so but the certificate itself is a bogus certificate. When such being the factual position, we are not able to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment made in W.P.No. 15869 of 1991 dated 20.2.1996. In order to place the anguish of the learned single Judge, we are of the view that it is appropriate to extract the few paragraphs of the judgment of the learned single Judge.