CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1995) 08 NCDRC CK 0005

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADURAI, TAMIL NADU vs SAKKARAI PANDI

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 14 August 1995 · Citation: 1995 0 NCDRC 86 : 1995 2 CPC 666 : 1995 3 CPR 350 : 1996 1 CPJ 193 : 1996 1 CPJ 20

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI , S.S.CHADHA , S.P.BAGLA J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

THIS Revision Petition is against the order of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras, dated 23.6.94 in A.P. No. 294/94. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai is the Appellant and Shri Sakkarai Pandi and Shri S. Ravichandran are the respondents. The respondents herein are father and son. They applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai for the issuing of a Community Certificate, as they belong to Kattunaickan Community, a recognised Schedule Tribe. The Revenue Divisional Authority, Appellant herein passed an order saying that the complainants originally belong to Kamarajar District and therefore, they should apply for the certificate there only. Against this order of the Revenue Divisional Authority, the respondents herein made a complaint to District Forum which passed an order directing the Revenue Divisional Authority to grant the certificate to the second respondent herein. The District Forum also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and costs at Rs. 250/-. In the appeal before the State Commission, Madras the order of the District Forum was upheld and the Revenue Divisional Authority was directed to consider the case in the light of the relevant documents and issue the Community Certificates within two weeks from the date of the order.

2.

NONE was present for the petitioner herein. We have heard the Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. We are of the clear view that the function which a Revenue Divisional Officer performs in issuing a Community Certificate is a statutory one which does not involve any hiring of service for consideration and hence it is not covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainants have no locus standi to seek any relief from a Consumer Forum/Commission. We, therefore, accept this Revision Petition and set aside the order of the District Forum and the State Commission, Tamil Nadu. However, we hope that the Revenue Authorities would act in an appropriate manner in giving the certificate to the respondents in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.