LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-209

G KALIYAPPAN Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

Decided On February 14, 2018
G Kaliyappan Appellant
V/S
SUB COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order bearing No. Na.Ka. 1463/2016/D dated 16.06.2017 passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to declare that the petitioner belongs to Kurumans (Scheduled Tribe) community.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to kurumans, which is a Scheduled Tribe Community. Pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner on 25.01.2016, for issuance of community certificate for his children, an enquiry with regard to the status of the community of the petitioner was conducted by the respondent. After completion of enquiry, the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner and his family members belong to Hindu Kurumba community, which comes under Most Backward Class and therefore, vide order dated 16.06.2017 rejected the request of the petitioner for issuance of Kurumans community certificate to his children. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee dated 01.12.2014 and 07.05.2014, relating to one M. Athiyaman and another, M.Manirathinam, respectively, who are blood relatives of the petitioner, wherein the Committee, after enquiry and careful examination of relevant documents, has declared them to be belonging to Kurumans Community. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the Geneaology Certificate to show that the said M. Athiyaman, M. Manirathinam as well as the petitioner are the descendants of one Muniappa Gounder/Gowdichiammal. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 22.04.2016 of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in P. Govindarasu V. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District (W.P. Nos. 17231, 17232, 17495 & 17496 of 2015), wherein, after referring to various judgments governing the issue in question, it was observed as follows: