V KRISHNAN Vs. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE ISSUING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above three writ petitions relate to the issue of community certificate to one K. Jothishree, D/o. V. Krishnan. In W.P. No: 2656 of 2007, the father of the said K. Jothishree has approached this Court questioning the order of the Schedule Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai dated 08.01.2007. It appears that the petitioner had applied for issue of community certificate in favour of his daughter K. Jothishree certifying that she belong to Hindu Kuruman community which is notified to be a Schedule Tribe community. The said application was made on the basis of the community certificate issued in favour of the said V. Krishnan and his wife V. Jamunadevi, certifying that both of them belong to Kuruman community, a notified schedule tribe. However, by the impugned order dated 08.01.2007, his request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfied as to the manner in which those certificates were obtained from the competent authority.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions and Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader. Prior to the issue of G.O. Ms. No: 2137 dated 11.11.1989, the Tahsildar had the jurisdiction over issuance of community certificate in respect of the schedule tribes. However by the said Government Order, the power to grant community certificate for the applicant seeking issue of community certificate namely Schedule Tribes vest with the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioner namely V. Krishnan that he was issued with a community certificate by the Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, on 12.06.1981 certifying himself to belong to Hindu Kuruman community and equally the petitioner has also produced such certificate issued in favour of his wife by name V. Jamunadevi, issued by the same Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, on the same date. Based on the above certificates, the petitioner was employed and is presently working in United India Insurance Company Ltd. and his wife is also working in Railways.

(3.) THOUGH it is a general rule that this court shall not issue a positive direction to the authorities to grant a certificate and would normally direct the authorities to consider and pass in the light of the observations made in the order, the said rule has exception. When this court had found that the petitioner had been unjustly denied the issuance of the community certificate and in the event this court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the community certificate based on the materials placed, it would only be justified in issuing a positive direction to the authorities, directing them to issue the community certificate.