DASARAJ Vs. COLLECTOR THIRU VANNAMALAI SAMBUVARAYAR DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dasaraj, the petitioner herein, prays for the issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, the second respondent herein, in his proceedings No. 1539/90, dated 2-11-90 and to quash the same.

(2.) The facts that are relevant for the disposal of this Writ Petition are stated as follows :-The petitioner claiming himself to be belonged to Malaikuravar community, classified as Scheduled Tribe, applied for the community certificate to the Tahsildar, Thiruvannamalai, the third respondent herein. On production of materials, the third respondent herein, after satisfying himself with the genuineness of his claim, issued a community certificate on 23-8-85 stating that the petitioner belongs to Malaikuravar community, classified as Scheduled Tribe. In pursuance of the community certificate, the petitioner applied for employment in I.C.F., Madras and he was selected and permitted to be acting as an Apprentice in the I.C.F. On reference from the General Manager, I.C.F., Madras by letter dated 16-9-88, the first respondent, the District Collector by the letter dated 31-5-90 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamali, the second respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry with reference to the genuineness of the community certificate issued to the petitioner on 23-8-85. Accordingly, the petitioner received a notice dated 24-7-90 sent by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the community certificate dated 23-8-85 should not be cancelled on the ground that the certificate has been obtained on false information. The said notice further directed the petitioner to appear before the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer with all the documents to establish his case. On receipt of this notice on 7-8-90, the petitioner on 14-8-90 sent a reply along with the documents stating that the community certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, the third respondent, on the basis of the genuine materials. On 2-11-90, the second respondent herein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, on considering the reply and other materials, cancelled the community certificate. This impugned order is under challenge in this Writ Petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Lakshminarayanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would attack the impugned order contending that the said order of cancellation of petitioner's community certificate, already issued in his favour is illegal, without jurisdiction, vitiated, violative of the principles of natural justice and totally unjustified. The main plank of the attack by the counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, is not competent to cancel the community certificate validly issued by the Tahsildar and the said cancellation had been ordered by the Revenue Divisional Officer without following the principles of natural justice. He would cite several authorities, in order to substantiate his contention. The said decisions are as follows :-(1) N. V. Subramanian v. The Addl. Collector, Salem District, 1997 Writ LR 508 : (AIR 1998 Mad 28);(2) Illamaran D. v. Govt. of India, 1996 Writ LR 482;(3) S. Duraisamy Reddy v. Collector of Salem District, 1998 Writ LR 606; and(4) Sekar R. K. v. District Collector, Chennagai M.G.R. District, 1996 Writ LR 484.