IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN 1.S.Thukaram W.P.No.13323 of 2014 and MP.No.2 of 2014 2.S.Janakiraman ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The Collector of Chennai (Chairman, District Vigilance Committee) Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai - 600 031.
3. The Tahsildar, Fort-Thondiarpet Taluk, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to Na.Ka.No.U5/34058/2004 dated 28.03.2014 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Mohanamurali For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatramani Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Kumar Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28 March 2014 cancelling the Community Certificates issued to the petitioners and their father on the ground that they do not belong to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community.
2. The father of the petitioners by name K.Subramaniyam obtained a Community Certificate indicating that he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community. The petitioners have undergone school and college education on the strength of the Community Certificate issued in the name of their father. The petitioners were appointed as Contractors by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioners produced the Hindu Adi Dravidar Community Certificate before the Indian Oil Corporation. It is the grievance of the petitioners that at the instance of certain other rival operators, the Indian Oil Corporation referred the Community Certificate to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny. The State Level Scrutiny Committee conducted enquiry and ultimately, cancelled the certificates issued to the petitioners. The order was challenged before this Court.
3. This Court by order dated 18 June 2013 in W.P.No.5185 of 2013 set aside the order and directed the statutory committee to conduct enquiry and decide the matter afresh.
4. The State Level Scrutiny Committee pursuant to the direction in W.P.No.5185 of 2013 conducted enquiry through the District Vigilance Committee and thereafter, took a decision to cancel the certificates issued to the petitioners. The Scrutiny Committee cancelled the certificate issued to the father of the petitioners also, notwithstanding the fact that he is no more and notices were not issued to other legal representatives. The order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Committee was not furnished to the petitioners, so as to enable them to offer their comments.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell behind the back of the petitioners. Similarly, before cancelling the certificate in the name of the father of the petitioners, other legal heirs were not given notice. In short, violation of principles of natural justice is taken as the main ground to assail the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General supported the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioners produced only school certificates indicating that they belong to Hindu Adi Dravidar community. No other evidence was produced before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee was therefore perfectly correct in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners do not belong to the community in question.
7. The order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee indicates that enquiry was conducted in the village and statements were recorded from witnesses. The report submitted by the Vigilance Committee was taken as the basic material by the State Level Scrutiny Committee to arrive at a finding against the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that before cancelling the certificate issued to the father of the petitioners, notices were not issued to other legal representatives. We are informed that there are five children born to Thiru.K.Subramaniyam in his wedlock with Mrs.Rajeshwari.
8. We have perused the file produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. There is nothing on record to show that copies of the statements recorded by the Vigilance Committee were given to the petitioners. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the enquiry report was given to the petitioners and they were directed to offer their comments.
9. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241] very clearly stated that in case, the report submitted by the District Vigilance Committee is taken as a material to cancel the Community Certificate, copy of the report should be given to the concerned person. These are all procedural safe guards given to a person, who is in possession of a Community Certificate and whose certificate is under challenge. Since the State Level Scrutiny Committee failed to give copies of the statements and the enquiry report to the petitioners and a decision was taken against the petitioners on the basis of those materials, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the order dated 28 March 2014 is set aside.
11. The State Level Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the statements recorded by the District Vigilance Committee and the final report submitted by the said committee, to the petitioners. The petitioners should be given three weeks' time to offer their comments with respect to the report submitted by the Vigilance Committee. In case, the petitioners are in possession of other documents evidencing their community status, the same shall also be considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Similarly, notice should be issued to the other legal representatives of Thiru.Subramaniyam, in case, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is of the view that his certificate also should be cancelled. Since the matter is pending right from 2007 onwards, only three weeks' notice should be given to the legal representatives to participate in the enquiry relating to the community status of Thiru.Subramaniyam.
12. We make it clear that the order is quashed only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is open to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to pass a fresh order taking into account the materials produced by the petitioner, the report of the Vigilance Committee and the comments received from the petitioners to the said report. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.)
6 April 2017
Index : Yes/No svki To
1. The Collector of Chennai (Chairman, District Vigilance Committee) Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai - 600 031.
3. The Tahsildar, Fort-Thondiarpet Taluk, Chennai - 600 001.
K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.
and M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.
(svki) W.P.No.13323 of 2014 06.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in