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

N.Ramakrishna Raju vs The Chairman

Madras High Court|24 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28 October 2014 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee holding that the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner on 17 July 1981 by the Tahsildar, Saidapet, is not genuine.
2. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee primarily on the ground that there was no reference to the Vigilance Cell, before taking a decision with regard to the Community status.
3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was indicated that the Vigilance Cell conducted enquiry, by issuing a memorandum dated 17 December 2014. According to the first respondent, before the Vigilance Cell, the petitioner appeared on 19 December 2014 and submitted certain particulars.
4. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent clearly shows that after passing the impugned order, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell. The first respondent ought to have referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell before passing orders with regard to the genuineness of the community status claimed by the petitioner. By referring the matter to the Vigilance Cell subsequent to the order declaring the community status, the first respondent violated the dictum laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and the related Government Orders. We are, therefore, of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the first respondent.
5. In the result, the order dated 28 October 2014 is set aside. The issue is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to follow the procedure indicated in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241], conduct enquiry with opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents and thereafter, decide the issue on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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

N.Ramakrishna Raju vs The Chairman

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
24 March, 2017