{"id":134708,"date":"2004-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004"},"modified":"2018-11-25T01:41:28","modified_gmt":"2018-11-24T20:11:28","slug":"b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 08\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN\n\nWRIT PETITION No.10186 of 1997\n\n\nB.Jeevanandam                                  .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The District Collector,\n  Dindigul District at Dindigul.\n\n2.The District Collector,\n  Madurai District at Madurai.\n\n3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n  Madurai.\n\n4.The Divisional Manager,\n  Canara Bank (Circle Office),\n  Staff Section (Workmen),\n  St. Mary's Campus, East Veli St.,\n  Madurai 625 001.                              .. Respondents\n\n                Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia  praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for\nthe records relating to the orders of  the  first  respondent  passed  in  his\nproceedings No.Na.Ka.18451\/94\/H1 dated 27.8.1996 and 25 .6.199 7 and quash the\nsame and direct the first respondent to send report to the Canara Bank, Circle\nOffice, Madurai, the fourth respondent herein based on the report of the third\nrespondent dated 7.6.1996.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.R.Ramesh\n\n^For Respondents-1to3:  Mrs.N.G.Kalaiselvi,\n                        Special Govt.  Pleader.\n\nFor Respondent-4 :  Mr.C.Godwin\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                The petitioner who claims to belong to Hindu Sholaga Community
\nwhich is included in the list of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1950
\nhas  filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 27.8.1996
\nand 25.6.1997 of the first respondent  and  for  consequential  relief.    The
\npetitioner  contended  that  he  has completed his SSLC as well as Plus-two at
\nMadurai and his SSLC certificate as well as transfer certificate disclose that
\nhe belongs to Hindu Sholaga Community.  The petitioner has obtained  community
\ncertificate  dated  3  .1.198  6 from Tahsildar, Nattam Taluk which originally
\nformed part of Madurai District and later on  included  in  Dindigul  District
\nafter bifurcation.    According  to  the  petitioner  the said certificate was
\nissued to him after due enquiry and verification of entire  records.    It  is
\nfurther  contended  that  the  petitioner  was selected as Clerk in the fourth
\nrespondent-bank during 1985 and the above community certificate  was  produced
\nat  the  time  of  his appointment in the fourth respondentbank during January
\n1986 and after verifying the community certificate as well as other  connected
\nrecords,  he  was  allowed  to  join  duty  as a Clerk after completion of his
\ntraining period.   However,  nearly  after  completion  of  several  years  of
\nservice,  the fourth respondent-bank has chosen to verify the community status
\nof the petitioner and issued a communication  dated  11.4.1994  directing  the
\npetitioner  to  appear  for  enquiry in the Office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul.
\nEven though the said direction is issued  by  the  fourth  respondent-bank  to
\nappear  for enquiry, in the very said communication, the fourth respondent has
\nindicated that the petitioner would not be eligible for leave on duty and also
\nnot eligible for travelling and other allowances.  As directed by  the  fourth
\nrespondent, he  has  appeared  for an enquiry before the Tahsildar.  Later on,
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer,  Dindigul  has  directed  him  to  appear  for
\nenquiry on  25.9.1995.    Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared on the said
\ndate and once again produced all the documents available in  his  custody  and
\nalso participated  in  the enquiry.  After completion of the said enquiry, the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer through his  letter  dated  8.1.1996  informed  the
\nDistrict  Collector, Dindigul viz., the first respondent to the effect that an
\nenquiry has to be conducted at Madurai by  referring  to  the  fact  that  the
\npetitioner was  born  at Madurai.  The above decision was taken by the Revenue
\nDivisional  Officer,  Dindigul  on  the  basis  of  production  of  the  birth
\ncertificate   by   the  petitioner  in  the  course  of  enquiry  before  him.
\nAccordingly, the first respondent in his letter dated 3.4.1996  has  requested
\nthe  second  respondent  viz.,  the  District Collector, Madurai to conduct an
\nenquiry who in turn has delegated his powers upon the third respondent,  viz.,
\nthe  Revenue  Divisional  Officer, Madurai to conduct an enquiry and to submit
\nhis report.  The third respondent has conducted an enquiry on 10.5.1996 and in
\nthe course of enquiry, the  petitioner,  petitioner’s  father  and  his  close
\nrelative  A.Marudiah  and  other residents have appeared and gave statement in
\nsupport of the claim of  the  petitioner.    The  third  respondent  has  also
\nindependently  conducted  another  enquiry  through Madurai South Zonal Deputy
\nTahsildar on 2 3.5.1996 and  in  the  said  enquiry  the  petitioner  and  his
\nrelative have  participated.    After the said enquiry, a final conclusion was
\narrived at by the third respondent in his report dated 7.6.1996  holding  that
\nthe  petitioner  belonged  to  Hindu Sholaga community and the said report was
\nforwarded to the second respondent.  The second respondent  has  accepted  the
\nsaid  report of the third respondent inasmuch as the communication was sent by
\nhim in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.56153 dated  28.6.1996  wherein  the  final
\nreport submitted  by the third respondent was forwarded.  The first respondent
\nhas also forwarded another report of the Revenue Divisional  Officer,  Madurai
\ndated  30.5.1996  wherein  the  details with reference to the ancestors of the
\npetitioner have been set out and the relationship of the petitioner  with  one
\nA.   Marudiah  has  been  traced  and  further  details  of  migration  of the
\npetitioner’s ancestors from Tirunelveli District to Madurai District have been
\ndisclosed.  In view  of  the  fact  that  the  third  respondent  has  finally
\nconcluded  about  the community status of the petitioner with reference to his
\nancestors and other documents produced viz., the school registers and  a  sale
\ndeed  dated 21.5.1963 pertaining to the above mentioned A.Marudiah, which came
\ninto existence even prior to the birth of the petitioner, the first respondent
\ninstead of communicating the favourable report  pertaining  to  the  community
\nstatus of the petitioner, has chosen to send the impugned communications dated
\n27.8.1996  and 25 .6 .1997 resulting in the petitioner to approach this Court.
\nThe communication dated 27.8.1996 is  addressed  to  the  District  Collector,
\nTirunelveli District, directing him to submit a further report relating to the
\nancestors  of the petitioner and the communication dated 25.6.1997 is a notice
\nissued on behalf of the respondent calling upon the petitioner to  appear  for
\nenquiry once  again  in  the  office  of the first respondent.  In view of the
\nrepeated  enquiries  and  the  attitude  of  the  first  respondent   who   is
\nunnecessarily  prolonging  the  issue  in spite of the receipt of a favourable
\nfinding from a high ranking Officer  viz.,  the  Revenue  Divisional  Officer,
\nMadurai  which  is  acted  upon  by  the  second respondent viz., the District
\nCollector, Madurai, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition  for  the
\nrelief stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  fourth  respondent  has  filed  a  counter-affidavit
\ncontending that there is nothing wrong on the part of the fourth respondent to
\nverify the community certificate produced by the petitioner and also contended
\nthat in view of the direction of the Central Government dated  5.11.1992,  the
\npresent enquiry is ordered in respect of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The  learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
\nrespondents 1 to 3 has contended that there is nothing wrong on  the  part  of
\nthe  respondents  to  conduct  enquiry through various Officers until they are
\nsatisfied about the claim made by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  I have considered the rival claims of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Before adverting to the manner in which  the  enquiry  was
\nconducted  by  the  respondents  1  to  3  it  would  be useful to examine the
\ncircumstances under which the present enquiry is initiated at the instance  of
\nthe fourth   respondent.      The   fourth   respondent   in   para-4  of  the
\ncounter-affidavit has stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “The Government of India has  issued  guidelines  for  appointment  of
\nSC\/ST candidates  to post in Government of India Undertakings.  The guidelines
\nissued by the  Government  provide  that  the  Community  Certificate  in  the
\nprescribed format shall be issued by one of the five Authorities noted below:-\n<\/p>\n
        (1) District Magistrate\/Additional District Magistrate\/Collector\/….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
..              ...             ...     ...\n        ...             ...             ...\n        (2)    Chief   Presidency   Magistrate\/Additional   Chief   Presidency\nMagistrate\/Presidency Magistrate.\n        (3) Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        (4) Sub-Divisional Officer of the area where the candidate and\/or  his
\nfamily normally resides.\n<\/p>\n
        (5)  Administrator\/Secretary  to  Administrator\/Development  Officer (
\nLakshdweep Islands)”\n<\/p>\n
On a reference to the above, it is clearly admitted that one of the  competent
\nauthority  to issue the community certificate is the Revenue Officer not below
\nthe rank of Tahsildar.  The fourth respondent has further  admitted  that  the
\npetitioner  has  produced a community certificate dated 3.1.1986 issued by the
\nTahsildar Nattam Taluk.  The counter-affidavit further proceeds to the  effect
\nthat the present enquiry is initiated by the fourth respondent on the basis of
\nthe  communication of the Central Government in its letter No.101\/34\/92SCT (B)
\ndated 5 .11.1992 wherein it is mentioned that  the  community  certificate  in
\nrespect  of  scheduled  tribe candidates from Tamilnadu who have joined in the
\nservices on and after 11.11.1989 are required  to  submit  their  certificates
\nduly  signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and those who have joined prior
\nto 11.11.1989, the certificates produced by them should  be  verified  through
\nthe concerned District Collectors.  The counter also proceeds further that the
\npresent enquiry was required only on the basis of the abovesaid communication.
\nA  further  reference  is  also  made in the counter-affidavit that as per the
\nbrochure on ‘ Reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes  Services’,
\nthe employer is entitled to verify if it considers necessary at any time after
\nappointment.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   In  the light of the above pleadings, it is seen that the
\ncompetent authority to issue the community certificate is the Tahsildar at the
\nrelevant point of time.  Inasmuch as the petitioner has produced  a  community
\ncertificate  obtained  from a competent authority and it is nobody’s case that
\nthe said certificate was not issued by the said authority, it is not known  as
\nto  what  prompted the fourth respondent to suddenly conduct an enquiry nearly
\nafter several years of appointment viz., after a decade.   Assuming  that  the
\nfourth  respondent  is  constrained  to  conduct  an enquiry on the basis of a
\ncommunication issued by the Central Government  dated  5.11.1992,  it  appears
\nthat the fourth respondent has not appreciated the purpose for which the above
\ncommunication was sent by the Central Government.  It is an admitted fact that
\nas  far  as  the  Tamilnadu  is  concerned,  the State Government has passed a
\nGovernment Order in  G.O.Ms.No.2137  dated  11.11.1989  wherein  the  list  of
\nauthorities  empowered  to issue community certificate in respect of scheduled
\ntribes are concerned was designated as the Revenue Divisional Officer  on  and
\nfrom 11.11.1989.    Inasmuch  as  the new authority is authorised to issue the
\ncommunity certificate from a particular date viz.,  11.11.1989,  it  is  quite
\nnatural  for  the  Government of India to issue a direction as stated above to
\nrequire the individuals from Tamilnadu to obtain community  certificates  only
\nfrom the  Revenue  Divisional  Officers.    Under  the said circumstances, any
\nfurther direction to the effect that all  the  individuals  who  have  already
\njoined  service or got the community certificates prior to 11.11.1989 from the
\nlist of authorities originally empowered to issue the  community  certificates
\nshould  not be required to obtain another community certificate as a matter of
\ncourse.  In fact, when the interpretation of  the  said  order  of  the  State
\nGovernment  came  into question, the Apex Court in its judgment in R.Kandasamy
\nvs.  The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust (JT<\/a> 1997 (7) SC 660) has held  that
\nall  the  community  certificates issued prior to 11.11.1989 by the Tahsildars
\nhave to be treated as valid one.  The Apex Court  while  rendering  the  above
\ndecision has directed that the petitioner who has to be promoted to the higher
\npost  is  not required to produce another community certificate as long as the
\nearlier community certificate issued by the Tahsildar is not cancelled.   Even
\nthe  brochure  on  “Reservation  for  Scheduled  Caste and Scheduled Tribes in
\nservices” proceeds to the effect that the employers can conduct  enquiry  only
\nif  it  is  necessary  and no where it is indicated that in the absence of any
\nmaterials or circumstances warranting the authorities,  such  enquiry  can  be
\nconducted in  a  casual manner at the whims and fancies of the employers.  The
\nentire counter-affidavit do not disclose about  the  existence  of  any  other
\nreasons  except  the communication of the Government of India which is general
\nin nature.  In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the  communication
\nof  Government of India dated 5.11.1992 has no relevance and the same need not
\nbe acted upon.  His Lordship P.  SATHASIVAM, J., in the judgment in R.Gurusamy
\nvs.  District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore and Others<\/a> (1999  (3)
\nMLJ 88) has considered the question of verification of a community certificate
\nof  an  individual  and  held  therein  that merely on the basis of complaints
\nreceived from third parties, the verification process should not be  initiated
\nas the  same  would amount to harassment.  In the absence of any other reasons
\navailable for the fourth respondent to cause  verification  of  the  community
\nstatus of the petitioner, I am convinced that the present enquiry is initiated
\nin  a  mechanical  manner and such enquiries would amount to harassment to the
\nemployees concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  In fact, the Supreme Court in  its  decision  rendered  in
\nMadhuri Patil vs.  Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (AIR 1995 SC 94
\n)  at para 8, has emphasised that the State is enjoined under the Constitution
\nto provide facilities and  opportunities  for  development  of  the  Scheduled
\nTribes scientific temper, educational advancement and economic improvement, so
\nthat  they  may  achieve  excellence,  equality of status and live in dignity.
\nFurther emphasis is also made that reservation  in  admission  to  educational
\ninstitutions  and employment are major State policies to accord to the tribes,
\nsocial and economic justice apart from other  economic  measures.    The  Apex
\nCourt further emphasised that under the said circumstances, the Union of India
\nand  State Government have prescribed the procedure and has entrusted the duty
\nand responsibility to the Revenue Officers who are  gazetted  cadre  to  issue
\nsocial status  certificate  after due verification.  In the light of the above
\nobservation of the Apex Court and admittedly when the petitioner has  produced
\na  community  certificate from the Tahsildar as early as in the year 1996, who
\nis a gazetted Officer, the action of the fourth respondent in  suspecting  the
\ngenuineness  of the said certificate without the existence of any materials is
\nnot justified.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  As regards the procedure adopted by the  first  respondent
\nin finding out the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it
\nis seen  that  the petitioner is subjected to untold misery and hardship.  The
\nenquiry was initially conducted by  the  office  of  the  Tahsildar,  Dindigul
\nduring  1994  and  thereafter  by  the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul on
\n25.9.1995 and subsequently, a report was submitted on 8.1.1996 by him  to  the
\nfirst respondent.    The  first  respondent in turn has called upon the second
\nrespondent to conduct an enquiry once again on the ground that the  petitioner
\nwas born  at  Madurai.    It  is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not
\nsuppressed at any point of time about his place of birth  as  Madurai  in  the
\nenquiry conducted  by  the  Revenue  Divisional Officer, Dindigul.  As per the
\ndirections of the first respondent, the second  respondent  has  directed  the
\nRevenue  Divisional  Officer,  Madurai viz., the third respondent to conduct a
\ndetailed enquiry.  Accordingly, a further enquiry was held in  the  office  of
\nthe  third  respondent  on 10.5.1996 on which date, the petitioner, his father
\nand his relatives and his close relative one A.  Marudiah and other  residents
\nappeared   and  gave  statement  apart  from  the  production  of  documentary
\nevidences, including the registered document of the year 1963 which came  into
\nexistence prior  to the birth of the petitioner.  Apart from the said enquiry,
\na discreet enquiry was conducted independently  by  the  third  respondent  on
\n23.5.1996 through  Madurai  South Zonal Deputy Tahsildar.  After completion of
\nall such formalities, the third respondent has forwarded a detailed report  on
\n30.5.19  96  with  regard  to the migration of the petitioner’s ancestors from
\nTirunelveli District and the relationship  between  the  petitioner  with  one
\nA.Marudiah was  traced.   Finally another report was submitted on 8 .6.1996 by
\nthe third respondent holding  that  the  petitioner  belongs  to  the  Sholaga
\ncommunity, which  is  included  in  the  list of scheduled tribes.  The second
\nrespondent on receipt of the  above  mentioned  two  reports  from  the  third
\nrespondent  has  informed  the  first respondent that as per the report of the
\nthird respondent, the petitioner belongs to Hindu  Sholaga  community.    Even
\nthough  the  second  respondent  has  sent a communication dated 28.6.1996, by
\nmerely requesting the first respondent to take a final decision, in effect the
\nenquiry was concluded and the report of the third respondent  was  acted  upon
\nwherein  it  is  held  that the petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
\nCommunity.  The enquiry was delegated to the second respondent on  the  ground
\nthat  the  petitioner  was  born  at  Madurai  and he has obtained a community
\ncertificate from the Tahsildar, Nattam Taluk which  originally  form  part  of
\nMadurai  District  and as such, the findings of the Revenue Authorities of the
\nMadurai District have to be treated  as  final  and  binding  upon  the  other
\nauthorities.   In  fact,  the second respondent has not rejected the report of
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer and he has  only  forwarded  the  said  reports
\nwhich  would  mean  that  he  has  also  affirmed  the  decision  of the third
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Even though a favourable finding was  arrived  at  by  the
\nthird  respondent,  as  communicated  by  the  second  respondent,  the  first
\nrespondent has again took the view that the matter should not be given a
\nquietus and chosen to send the impugned communication dated 27.8.1996
\naddressed to the District Collector, Tirunelveli  to  conduct  an  enquiry  in
\nrespect  of  the  petitioner’s  relative  A.Marudiah  as well as the community
\ncertificate issued to the said A.Marudiah and to forward  a  report  and  also
\nchosen  to  send  another  communication  dated  27.5.1996  calling  upon  the
\npetitioner to appear for another enquiry.  Inasmuch as  an  elaborate  enquiry
\nwas  conducted  initially by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
\nDindigul and thereafter the two enquiries by the third respondent,  viz.,  the
\nRevenue  Divisional Officer, Madurai and the decision of the second respondent
\nin forwarding the final report of the third respondent, it is not known as  to
\nwhy  the first respondent has again entertained a further doubt with regard to
\nthe genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   It  is seen from the averments made by the petitioner in
\nthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Government of  India,
\nSocial  Welfare  Department in memo No.34796\/HW\/III\/76 dated 16.8.197 5 on the
\nbasis  of  the  report  of  the  then  District  Collector,  Tirunelveli   has
\nrecommended  the  petitioner’s relative A.Marudiah to be nominated as a member
\nof the District Harijan Welfare Committee.  At the relevant point of time, the
\nsaid A.Marudiah was appointed as the  President  of  the  Tiruneveli  District
\nSholaga Community.    In pursuance of the said notification, the Government of
\nIndia has also nominated the said A.Marudiah on 16.8.1975 as the member of the
\nsaid committee.  The above said A.Marudiah is none-else than  the  brother  of
\nthe petitioner’s maternal grandfather.\n<\/p>\n
His Lordship P.    SATHASIVAM,  J.,  in  the  judgment in N.Rajeswari vs.  The
\nDistrict Collector, Nellai Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli  and  others  (WP
\nNo.19793  of<\/a>  1992  dated  24.9.1999) has considered the above mentioned facts
\nwhile considering the claim of the petitioner therein, has rendered a  finding
\nthat the  petitioner  belonged  to  Hindu  Sholaga  Community.    In  the said
\njudgment, the learned Judge has made a reference about the community status of
\nthe above mentioned A.  Marudiah,  who  is  also  related  to  the  petitioner
\ntherein.   Inasmuch  as  the  third respondent has submitted a detailed report
\ntracing the relationship between the  petitioner  herein  with  the  abovesaid
\nA.Marudiah  and  having  submitted  a favourable report to the effect that the
\npetitioner is belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community, the further enquiry by the
\nfirst respondent would tantamount to taking a contrary view of the decision of
\nthe learned Judge in the judgment referred  supra.    In  fact,  the  impugned
\ncommunication  of  the first respondent dated 25.6.1997 merely proceeds to the
\neffect that an enquiry will be conducted again and the petitioner is  directed
\nto appear  in  the  office  of  the first respondent.  The other communication
\ndated 27.8.1996 addressed by the first respondent to the  District  Collector,
\nTirunelveli District proceeds to the effect that an enquiry shall be conducted
\nin  respect  of  the  abovesaid A.Marudiah, who has already been recognised by
\nthis Court as belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community in  the  decision  referred
\nsupra.   Under  the  said  circumstances,  there is no necessity for the first
\nrespondent to prolong the enquiry in the guise of collecting further details.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  As regards the legal issues are concerned, it is needless
\nto point out that once a favourable report is arrived at  in  respect  of  the
\ncommunity  status  of an individual is concerned, there shall not be a further
\nenquiry which would be nothing but a harassment.  In fact, the Apex  Court  in
\nits judgment in Madhuri Patil vs.  Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
\n(AIR  1995  SC  94)  has held that once a favourable report is received to the
\neffect that the claim of the individual is genuine, no further action need  be
\ntaken unless such report is fraudulently obtained.  Admittedly, in the case on
\nhand,  the  impugned communication of the first respondent do not suggest that
\nearlier report of the second respondent as well as the  third  respondent  was
\nfraudulently obtained.    The Division Bench of this Court rendered a judgment
\nin Sakthi Devi, S.P.  vs.  The Collector  of  Salem,  Salem  etc.    (  Vol.98
\nL.W.105)  by their Lordships M.N.CHANDURKAR, CHIEF JUSTICE, and SATHIADEV, J.,
\nwherein it was held that once a favourable report is received from the Revenue
\nAuthorities to the effect that the community certificate is genuine thereafter
\nthe certificate holder cannot be  further  harassed  to  prove  his  community
\nstatus.  His  Lordship S.S.  SUBRAMANI, J., in the judgment in S.Natarajan vs.
\nDistrict Collector, Tuticorin and Others (AIR<\/a> 1999 MADRAS  241)  wherein  held
\nthat  once  a  member of the family was declared as belonging to the scheduled
\ntribe community, the other members should not be denied for  the  issuance  of
\nthe said  certificate.    Admittedly,  in  the  case on hand, the petitioner’s
\ngrandfather’s brother by name A.Marudiah is held to be belonging to  scheduled
\ntribe  community  by decision rendered by this Court referred to supra, and he
\nis also possessing a valid community certificate and as  such  the  petitioner
\nwho  is  also  a member of his family, should not be denied the same benefits.
\nThe Apex court in its judgment rendered in GAYATRILAXMI  BAPURAO  NAGPURE  vs.
\nSTATE  OF MAHARASHTRA<\/a> (19 96 (3) SCC 685) has held that a wrongful denial of a
\ncaste certificate  to  the  genuine  candidate  will  deprive  the  privileges
\nconferred  upon  the  said  individual  by the Constitution and as such, it is
\nemphasised that greater care must be taken before granting  or  rejecting  any
\nclaim for  caste  certificate.    The  Apex  Court  while  rendering the above
\njudgment has taken note of the principles laid down  in  the  Madhuri  Patil’s
\ncase and found that the rejection of the claim of the individual therein about
\nher  community  status in spite of production of several documentary evidences
\nwas bad in law.  Inasmuch as a favourable report is arrived at in  respect  of
\nthe  petitioner’s community status, he cannot be further harassed to prove his
\ncommunity status.  The above proposition of law is  emphasised  in  number  of
\ncases and they are:\n<\/p>\n
        1.  B.Kumari  vs.    The  District  Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman
\nDistrict, Tirunelveli (WP<\/a> 12083 of 1995 dated 9.6.2000)\n<\/p>\n
        2.  R.Nirmala vs.  The District Collector, Salem District,  Salem  and<\/a>
\nanother (WP 11140 of 1997 dated 21.8.2002)\n<\/p>\n
        3.  S.Nambiraj  vs.    The District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman
\nDistrict, Tirunelveli and<\/a> two others (WP 17665 of 1993 dated 2.7.2002 )\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The Sub Collector, Hosur, Dharmapuri District and two  others  vs.
\nP.M.Muni Reddi (WA 1054 of 1986 dated 25.4.1989)\n<\/p>\n
        5.  T.Padmanabhan  and  T.Karthikeyan  vs.    The  District Collector,
\nTirunelveli and two others (WPs 12439 and 12440 of 1997 dated 17.3.19 99).\n<\/p>\n
                12.  For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion
\nthat the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and  the  writ  petitioner
\nhas to be treated as belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community which is included in
\nthe list  of  Scheduled  Tribes.  The writ petition is allowed, however, there
\nwill be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
svn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector,
\nDindigul District at Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Collector,
\nMadurai District at Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Divisional Manager,
\nCanara Bank (Circle Office),
\nStaff Section (Workmen),
\nSt.  Mary’s Campus, East Veli St.,
\nMadurai 625 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN WRIT PETITION No.10186 of 1997 B.Jeevanandam .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District at Dindigul. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District at Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-134708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3810,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\",\"name\":\"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004"},"wordCount":3810,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004","name":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-24T20:11:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-jeevanandam-vs-the-district-collector-on-8-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Jeevanandam vs The District Collector on 8 April, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}