(The Order of the Court was made by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J) The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the rejection order of the respondent in Na.Ka.631/2009/C4, dated 6.4.2009, quash the same and to direct the respondent to issue Community Certificate to the children of the petitioner, viz., (i) K.S.Ramesh Bharathi, (ii) K.S.Ranjith Bharathi and (iii) K.S.Rajesh Bharathi, that they belong to Hindu Palliyan Community (Scheduled Tribe) on the basis of the Certificate already possessed by the petitioner, and also on the basis of the enquiry report of the Tahsildar, Ambattur, dated 26.7.2007 in Na.Ka.No.3121/2007/A2.
2. By the said order, dated 6.4.2009, the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, rejected the request of the petitioner for issuance of Community Certificate in respect of Hindu Palliyan Community on the ground that he has not filed proper documents in respect of the said Community.
3. Inspite of repeated time allowed, as no affidavit was filed, the respondent-RDO, Ponneri was asked to appear and state as to why costs be not imposed on him. He accepts that intimation was received by his office, but states that it was not brought to his notice and that he has already taken action against the concerned staff.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-RDO, it has not been denied and in fact it has been accepted that the petitioner is holding the Community Certificate, each from the Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet and the Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk, that he belongs to Hindu Palliyan Community, i.e. a Scheduled Tribe category and had produced copies of those Certificates. Now before us, the only stand taken is that the Certificates have been issued from other Division(s) and therefore, the petitioner should have applied there.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-RDO, and the respondent-RDO, Ponneri in person.
6. We have already noticed that the petitioner has produced the Community Certificate each from the Deputy Tahsildar, Saidapet, and Tahsildar, Perambur-Purasawalkam Taluk. Therefore, it cannot be stated that no proper document in respect of the Community was produced by the petitioner. Such ground having been taken by the respondent-RDO in the impugned order, dated 6.4.2009, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. It has also been brought to our notice that pursuant to the request made by the respondent-RDO, Ponneri, the petitioner was asked by the Tahsildar, Ambattur-Ponneri Taluk, to appear for enquiry and the enquiry has already been made and report has also been sent to the respondent-RDO, Ponneri.
8. In the facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order, dated 6.4.2009 and remit the case to the respondent-RDO, Ponneri to re-consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of the Community Certificate to the petitioner and to his children, viz., (i) K.S.Ramesh Bharathi, (ii) K.S.Ranjith Bharathi and (iii) K.S.Rajesh Bharathi, on the basis of the documents available on record, including the enquiry report already submitted by the Tahsildar, Ambattur-Ponneri Taluk. If necessary, the respondent-RDO, Ponneri, also may enquire into the matter and a decision in this regard be taken and communicated to the petitioner within one month from today.
9. The Writ Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10. The appearance of the respondent-RDO, Ponneri, is dispensed with. In view of the explanation offered by the respondent-RDO, we are not imposing any costs on the respondent-RDO.
cs To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Division, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District