Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M.Ramasamy vs The Member Secretary

Madras High Court|03 April, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[Order of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.B.Jeyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials produced.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order, dated 27.10.2015, passed by the first respondent, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner's request for grant of Community Certificate, as Malaivedan Community, to his children, namely, Prasad and Sridevi has been rejected and to direct the first respondent to issue Malaivedan Community Certificate to his children.
3. It is seen that the first respondent, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, rejected his request for issuance of a Community Certificate as Malaivedan Community on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any proof to show that he belongs to the said Community.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after elaborately referring to the facts, submitted that in the deposition given before the first respondent / District Vigilance Committee, the petitioner has clearly stated about his relatives, who belonged to the said community.
5. In our considered view, this submission does not merit consideration for the simple reason that the onus is on the part of the petitioner to prove his statement. A mere oral statement without any documentary proof will noway support of the petitioner's claim. Further, reference to the genealogy chart issued by the Village Administrative Officer is of little avail and the petitioner cannot rely upon the same. Hence, for all these reasons, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the first respondent and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Member Secretary, The District Vigilance Committee, Dindigul District.
2.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M.Ramasamy vs The Member Secretary

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
03 April, 2017