BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31/08/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition(MD)Nos.6581 of 2006 Writ Petition(MD)Nos.6864, 7391, 7433 and 7523 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.6581 of 2006, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.6864 of 2006, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.7391 of 2006, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.7433 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 in W.P.(MD)No.7523 of 2006, S.Chandrasekaran. ... Petitioner W.P.(MD)No.6581 of 2006 P.Poongothai, ... Petitioner W.P.(MD)No.6864 of 2006 N.Venugopal ... Petitioner W.P.(MD)No.7391 of 2006 T.Radha Krishnan ... Petitioner W.P.(MD)No.7433 of 2006 Veeragnanalakshmi ... Petitioner W.P.(MD)No.7523 of 2006 Vs The District Collector and Chairman District Level Vigilance Committee, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent in all the W.Ps.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating
to the proceedings of the respondent in NA.KA.A4/77788/05, dated 5.7.2006;
A4/76862/2005, dated 7.7.2006; A4/14508/2004, dated 26.7.2006; A4/12778/2006,
dated 26.7.2006 and NA.KA.A4/77785/05, dated 3.7.2006 respectively and quash the
same.
!For petitioner in
all Writ Petitions … Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
^For respondent in
Writ Petition Nos.
6581, 6864, 7433, and 7523 of 2006 ... Mr.K.Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader For respondent in Writ Petition No. 7391 of 2006 ... Mr.D.Sasikumar, Government Advocate. :COMMON ORDER
Writ Petitions are filed praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari
calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in
NA.KA.A4/77788/05, dated 5.7.2006; A4/76862/2005, dated 7.7.2006; A4/14508/2004,
dated 26.7.2006; A4/12778/2006, dated 26.7.2006 and NA.KA.A4/77785/05, dated
3.7.2006 respectively and quash the same.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Since all the five writ petitions are filed against the notices
issued to verify the bona fides of community certificates issued and the prayer
in all the writ petitions are to quash the said notices, all the five writ
petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
4. W.P.No.6581 of 2006:- The claim of the petitioner is that he belongs
to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by
virtue of the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
petitioner obtained a community certificate in the year, 1977. During the year
1988, on the basis of certain complaint, proceedings were initiated by the
authorities and the community certificate was cancelled and the same was
challenged before the Court in W.P.No.1257 of 2001. By order dated 26.7.2005,
the Principal Bench of Madras High Court set aside the order cancelling the
community certificate in view of Committee constituted in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.111 ADW-10 dated 6.7.2005. Thereafter a notice was issued by the
respondent on 19.9.2005 calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation.
After exchange of correspondence, the impugned communication dated 5.7.2006 has
been issued by the respondent calling for explanation alone. There is no
indication that a personal hearing would be given before deciding the issue.
According to the petitioner, the notice is contrary to the directions issued by
the Apex Court in Maduri Patil – vs. – Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would plead that inasmuch as the impugned notice only directs the
petitioner to submit his explanation without providing an opportunity or
personal hearing, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and therefore, the
writ petition.
5. W.P.No.6864 of 2006:- The claim of the petitioner is that she belongs
to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by
virtue of the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
petitioner obtained a community certificate in the year, 1976. During the year
1985, on the basis of certain complaint, proceedings were initiated by the
authorities and the community certificate was cancelled by a Two Member District
Level Committee and disciplinary proceedings were taken. Hence the same was
challenged before the Court in W.P.No.13206 of 2001. The Principal Bench of
Madras High Court by order dated 27.7.2005 held that the matter should be
decided by the Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111 ADW-10 dated
6.7.2005. Thereafter a notice has been issued by the respondent on 7.7.2006 to
the petitioner calling upon her to offer her explanation alone. There was no
indication that a personal hearing would be given before deciding the issue.
According to the petitioner, the notice is contrary to the directions issued by
the Apex Court in Maduri Patil – vs. – Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would plead that inasmuch as the impugned notice only directs the
petitioner to submit her explanation without providing an opportunity for
personal hearing, prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and therefore the
writ petition.
6. W.P.No.7391 of 2006:- The claim of the petitioner is that he belongs
to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by
virtue of the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
petitioner obtained a community certificate in the year, 1973. During the year
1996, on the basis of certain complaint, proceedings were initiated by the
authorities and the community certificate was cancelled on 25.12.2003 by the Two
Member District Level Committee and the same was challenged before the Court in
W.P.No.676 of 2004. A Division Bench by order dated 26.7.2005 held that the
matter should be decided by the Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111
ADW-10 dated 6.7.2005. Thereafter a notice has been issued by the respondent on
6.10.2005 to the petitioner calling upon him to offer his explanation alone.
There was no indication that a personal hearing would be given before deciding
the issue. Another communication dated 27.2.2006 was also issued calling upon
the petitioner to submit his explanation alone and there was no indication that
a personal hearing would be given in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in
Maduri Patil – vs. – Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR
1995 Supreme Court 94. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that
in this case the notice issued on 27.2.2006 was challenged in W.P.No.2509 of
2006 and this Court passed the following order on 22.3.2006:-
“11. On a perusal of the above enquiry notices, it is seen that the Member
Secretary, District Vigilance Committee and District Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Officer, issued enquiry notices for verification of the caste
certificate by fixing the date for personal hearing and also the venue and time.
The individual is instructed to appear before the Committee for enquiry with all
the relevant original documents. In the impugned notice, no such date, time or
venue is fixed for personal hearing of the petitioner. Without fixing the date,
time and venue for personal hearing, it may not be possible for the petitioner
to make effective representation to put forth his case before the District Level
Vigilance Committee. Under such circumstances, the impugned notice cannot be
sustained.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice of the respondent dated
27.2.2006 is quashed. The respondent is directed to issue fresh notice as
issued by the other District Level Vigilance Committee by fixing date,time and
venue and directing the individual to appear before the Committee on a
particular date for personal enquiry with all the relevant original documents.
After issuing such notice, the respondent is directed to proceed the matter in
accordance with law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed as unnecessary.”
Inspite of the specific direction of this Court, the present impugned notice
dated 26.7.2006 has been issued indicating that the petitioner should submit his
explanation within 15 days. However, there is no indication with regard to
personal hearing. Hence the writ petition has been filed.
7. W.P.No.7433 of 2006:- The claim of the petitioner is that he belongs
to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by
virtue of the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
petitioner obtained a community certificate in the year, 1977. During the year
1990, on the basis of certain complaint, proceedings were initiated by the
authorities and the community certificate was cancelled on 26.8.2003 by the Two
Member District Level Committee. The same was challenged before the Court in
W.P.No.24618 of 2003 and this court remitted the matter back to appropriate
committee at State Level. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal to the
State Level Committee. The State Level Committee remitted the matter to the
District Level Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111 ADW-10 dated
6.7.2005. Thereafter the present impugned notice dated 26.7.2006 was issued
by the respondent to the petitioner to offer his explanation within 15 days.
However, personal hearing was not granted. According to the petitioner, it is
contrary to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Maduri Patil – vs. –
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court
94. The learned counsel for the petitioner would plead that inasmuch as the
impugned notice only directs the petitioner to submit his explanation without
providing an opportunity for personal hearing, prejudice will be caused to the
petitioner and therefore the writ petition.
8. W.P.No.7523 of 2006:- The claim of the petitioner is that she belongs
to Hindu Konda Reddy Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe under the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, passed by the President by
virtue of the powers conferred under Article 342 of the Constitution. The
petitioner obtained a community certificate in the year, 1982. During the year
2000, on the basis of certain complaint, proceedings were initiated by the
authorities and the community certificate was cancelled on 26.6.2000 by the Two
Member District Level Committee and the same was challenged before the
Principal Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.No.12481 of 2000 which was
dismissed. As against the same Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1521 of 2005 was filed
and a Division Bench by order dated 1.8.2005 allowed the writ appeal and
directed the Three Member Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.111/ADW-10
dated 6.7.2005 to scrutinise the certificate. Thereafter the petitioner
received a notice dated 21.12.2005 to offer her explanation and the petitioner
sought for time. Thereafter, the respondent issued the present impugned
communication dated 3.7.2006 calling upon the petitioner to offer her
explanation alone. There is no indication in the said impugned communication
that personal hearing will be given to the petitioner before deciding the issue.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the notice without giving opportunity of
personal hearing is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Maduri Patil – vs. – Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in AIR
1995 Supreme Court 94. The learned counsel for the petitioner would plead that
inasmuch as the impugned notice only provides for submitting explanation without
providing an opportunity for personal hearing, prejudice will be caused to the
petitioner and therefore the writ petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the District
Level Vigilance Committee, Tirunelveli District alone is in the habit of
refusing to grant a personal hearing, whereas in respect of other District Level
Vigilance Committees, personal hearing is being granted. The grievance of the
petitioner’s in all the writ petitions is that if an opportunity is given, they
could explain their case with all material particulars. He further submit that
the cancellation of community certificate will lead to serious consequences and
the life of the petitioners will be seriously affected.
10. The Apex Court in Maduri Patil – vs. – Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94 has held in paragraph 8
thus:-
“8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the
parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee
with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status
certificates.”
The Apex Court has clearly indicated that a reasonable opportunity should be
given to appear before the Committee. Further there is a direction of this
Court to give a personal hearing as set out supra. Such order has not been
appealed against and has become final and binding on the respondent. Therefore,
it has become necessary that the respondent should consider the earlier orders
of this Court and grant personal hearing to the petitioners. At this stage this
Court finds that no useful purpose will be served by quashing the notices which
have called upon the petitioners to submit their explanations. Even after
submitting the explanations, the petitioners could have asked for personal
hearing and the authorities are bound to provide a personal hearing.
11. Therefore, in view of the decision cited above and in order to meet
the requirement of natural justice, it would suffice if an opportunity of
personal hearing is granted before the matters are decided on merits. There is
an earlier order of this Court directing the respondent herein to grant a
personal hearing. Such direction is accepted and no appeal has been filed
against that order. Therefore, the respondent could have clearly indicated in
the notice that a personal hearing would be given after receipt of reply to the
notice. If such indication has been given in the notice, the petitioner would
not have come to this Court. The authority should bear in mind that a failure
on their part to indicate about the personal hearing, has delayed whole process
of scrutiny of the community certificate, which could have been avoided. The
Courts are already clogged with large number of cases, unnecessary litigation
can be avoided if there is some application of mind by the departmental
authorities before issuing a notice of this nature. Therefore, without setting
aside the impugned notice, there will be a direction to the respondent to afford
a personal hearing to the petitioners on their submitting the explanation. The
respective petitioners in all the cases will submit their explanations on or
before 22.9.2006. Thereafter, the respondent is directed to issue notice of
personal hearing giving at least 15 days clear notice to the petitioners while
fixing the date of personal hearing.
12. With the above directions, all the five writ petitions are disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
ts.
To
The District Collector and Chairman
District Level Vigilance Committee,
Tirunelveli District.