IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31071 of 2010(H)
1. PRADEESH K.P., S/O.PRASAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.31071 OF 2010(H)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s father belongs to Paravan community and his
mother belongs to Ullada community, a scheduled caste.
Petitioner claims that they are following the customs of Ullada’s
and therefore, should be issued a certificate to the effect that he
belongs to a scheduled caste. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P3, the
SSLC book, Ext.P4 community certificate of his mother and Ext.P5
Patta issued in mother’s favour which documents, according to
the petitioner, substantiates his contention.
2. It is stated that when an application was made, although
an enquiry conducted revealed that the petitioner is still
following the custom of the Ullada community, Ext.P1 certificate
was issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner
belongs to Paravan caste. It is aggrieved by Ext.P1 that this writ
petition sf filed.
3. The stand taken by the Government Pleader is that in the
enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent, although, it is revealed
that the petitioner’s father and mother live together there is
WPC.No. 31071/2010
:2 :
nothing to conclude that the custom followed by the petitioner
and his family are that of Ullada caste. It is stated that therefore
Ext.P1 certificate was issued.
4. In my view, if as stated by the petitioner, the customs
followed by them are that of a Ullada community, the petitioner
might be entitled to the certificate particularly in view of the
provisions contained in Ext.P2 Government Order. However this is
a question of fact and therefore this court will not be in a position
to take a decision in the mater.
5. In that view of the matter, I feel that the right course
open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against Ext.P1, which
has to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer. If such an
appeal is filed, it will be possible for the Revenue Divisional
Officer to conduct enquiry into the factual issues, either by
himself or by deputing an authorized competent subordinate
officer. Therefore, I relegate the petitioner to seek appeal
remedies against Ext.P1 and direct that if an appeal against
Ext.P1 is filed within 2 weeks from today, it will be entertained
and disposed of with notice to the parties within 8 weeks.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No. 31071/2010
:3 :