REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. M PARASURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order dated 13.07.2007 made in W.P.No.30957 of 2004 is put in issue in this appeal.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the respondent herein moved the Court for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur, appellant herein dated 01.10.2004 and direct him to issue permanent community certificate of Kattunaicken to his children. The said claim was made by the writ petitioner on the basis that he belonged to Kattunaicken community, which is listed as one of the Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Tamil Nadu and the writ petitioner was also granted community certificate by the Tahsildar, Arakonam by his proceedings dated 11.12.1974 as he belongs to the Kattunaiken community and based on the said certificate, the writ petitioner has been appointed in the Railway and worked as Senior Technician. On 01.09.2003, the writ petitioner has submitted an application enclosing documents such as community certificate issued to him and the copy of the service record issued by the employer of the writ petitioner and the copy of the community certificate dated 21.07.1996 issued to the writ petitioner's brother's son to the respondent in order to support his claim that the children of the writ petitioner are entitled to community certificate that they belong to Kattunaicken community. However while considering the application for issuance of community certificate, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur has directed the writ petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 29.09.2003. During enquiry, the writ petitioner submitted that Vellithankiupuram, hamalet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam Taluk was his native place and at present, he is residing at Periakuppam Village, Tiruvallur Taluk. He further submitted that he was working as Technician in Southern Railway and he came to Thiruvallur Taluk from his native during 1972 and his father was doing hunting and painting the vessels. He also submitted that he married one Malliga, who is the daughter of his uncle. One Shankar, who is the son of his wife's elder sister was also issued with the community certificate. The writ petitioner's daughter has been married to one Panneerselvam, S/o Arujunan and they are residing at Pichatur, Andhra pradesh and that his son-in-law has obtained Kattunaicken community certificate from the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu. As the writ petitioner has stated that his native was Vallithankupuram, hamlet of Balakrishnapuram village in Arakonam Taluk, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet was addressed to ascertain the actual community of the writ petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, has reported that the petitioner's father and his predecessors are belong to "Vettaikara Sigari" community and hence, the writ petitioner Parasuraman also belongs to "Vettaikara Sigari" community. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, has rejected the request of the writ petitioner for issuance of community certificate to the writ petitioner's children that they belong to Kattunaiken community. That order is put in issue before the writ court, which by following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in JT 1997 (7) SC 660 (R.Kandasamy Vs. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust) has observed that since the writ petitioner's community certificate has not been cancelled, the siblings have also to be issued the community certificate as sought for by the writ petitioner and further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvallur to issue community certificate to the writ petitioner's children as "Kattunaicken community" within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. That order is carried on appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur.

(3.) HEARD the argument of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.