AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, who are also the appellants in the second appeal, have filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for
the records of the first respondent/District Collector in Ref.Ne.Mu.No.28325/91 Adhi 8, dated 13-6-1994 and quash the same.
2.The case of the petitioners/appellants is that they belong to ""Kattunaicken"" community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community; that the
respondents were evading to issue the Community Certificates in spite of number of demands, despite their production of proof in support of their
claim, that hence, they instituted a suit in O.S.No.680 of 1991 against the first respondent/Collector for a declaration that the petitioners belong to
the said community and for consequential injunction restraining the respondents in the writ petition and his subordinate from denying to issue
permanent Community certificate to the petitioners herein, that the trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, decreed the suit
as prayed for on 31-3-1992, that the respondents in the writ petition filed appeal in A.S.No.132 of 1992, that the learned appellate Judge allowed
the appeal and set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court, that as against the same, S.A.No.1020 of 1994 has been filed and that the
same is posted along with the writ petition for joint disposal.
3.It is further stated in the writ petition that the second respondent in the writ petition/Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Madurai, issued
permanent Community Certificates to the petitioners on 2-4-1992, that the same were handed over to them through their counsel, that the R.D.O.,
Madurai has issued the said Certificates as per the directions issued by the Court below to the Collector in Contempt Proceedings, that the
Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners/appellants are valid and they are in force, that subsequent to the judgement and decree of the first
appellate Court, the first respondent/Collector, by his impugned order dated 13-6-1994, cancelled the permanent Community Certificates issued
in favour of the petitioners without notice to them, that the cancellation proceedings are issued not only following the judgement and decree of the
first appellate Court, but also under independent proceedings, that further, the petitioners have filed S.A.No.1020 of 1994 against the judgement
and decree of the first appellate Court and that the same is pending before this Court for being heard along with this writ petition. In the meanwhile,
the impugned order in the writ petition not only cancels the Community Certificates issued on 2-4-1992, but also the Certificates issued in the year
1978, 1982 and 1983, which were the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, that ought not to have been cancelled by the Collector without notice
to the petitioners.
4.In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, the respondents have stated, inter-alia, that the first petitioner applied to the R.D.O requesting for
the issuance of the said Certificates to his children, that the R.D.O., after enquiring the petitioners, submitted a report to the Collector stating that
the petitioners did not belong to the said Community and that the Certificates issued earlier must be cancelled, that in the meanwhile, the first
petitioner sent application to the Collector requesting him to issue the Community Certificate to his children, that the R.D.O who is the competent
authority to issue the said Certificate, was asked to send a report on the representation made by the first petitioner, that when the same was
pending, the first petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.680 of 1991, wherein, I.A.No.418 of 1991 was filed for injunction restraining the Collector,
Madurai from making enquiry in the matter and issue permanent Community Certificate in favour of the petitioners, in which, the Court passed an
ex-parte order on 2-5-1991 directing the Collector to issue the Certificate to the first petitioner and his family members on or before 20-6-1991
without delay with reference to their demand, that on appeal against the said interim order before the District Court, Madurai by the State with a
petition for stay and another petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, that pending appeal, the first petitioner filed a contempt application in
I.A.No.873 of 1991 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai under Order 39 Rule 2(a) C.P.C and Section 151 of C.P.C., that a
counter was filed against the said contempt application, that the main suit as well as the contempt petition were enquired jointly and the learned
Additional District Munsif passed orders against the Collector on 31-3-1992, whereby, the suit has been decreed as prayed for with costs and the
contempt application was allowed and ordered to detain the District Collector for 15 days in civil confinement, that the Collector had filed a
petition requesting to stay the operation of the judgement and decree in the suit and also the order passed in the said contempt petition from 31-3-
1992, that in the open Court, the learned Munsif stated that unless the Community Certificate was issued immediately as per the order of the
Court, no stay can be granted and accordingly, rejected the petition of the Collector, that the Community Certificates were issued to the first
petitioner and his family members by the R.D.O., Madurai, that thereafter, in the appeal in A.S.No.132 of 1992 against the order of the learned
Additional District Munsif in O.S.No.680 of 1991, the learned appellate Judge set aside the order of the District Munsif on 8-3-1994, that the
Government Pleader, Madurai, in his letter dated 18-5-1994, has given an opinion pointing out that the order of the lower Court was set aside by
the Principal Sub-Judge, Madurai and hence, there was no necessity to declare the community of the first petitioner and his family members as
Kattunaicken"", that the R.D.O., Madurai, who is the competent authority to verify and issue the Certificates, had already enquired about the
genuineness of the community of the petitioners and had reported that the petitioners do not belong to the said community and that they actually
belong to ""Odder"" Community and that, hence the impugned order was passed cancelling the Community Certificates issued earlier.
5.Thus, the second appeal came to be filed against the dismissal of the suit by the appellate Court allowing the appeal and as against the impugned
order, the writ petition has been filed.
6.Paragraphs 5 of the impugned order reads as follows:-
7.On a perusal of the abovesaid paragraph 5 of the impugned order, it is seen that the judgement of the Civil Court is also referred and it is further
stated that the Community Certificates (issued during the pendency of the first appeal and consequent to the order passed in the contempt
application by the learned District Munsif) issued by the R.D.O have been cancelled by the Collector.
8.In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is stated as follows:-
9.From the above paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is seen that the Certificates issued on 15-4-1978 to the first petitioner, on 11-3-1982 to
the second petitioner and on 18-7-1983 to the third petitioner were cancelled.
10.Before cancelling the abovesaid Certificates, admittedly, no show cause notice was issued and no enquiry as contemplated under law has been
conducted by the authority concerned. Therefore, on this short ground, the abovesaid portion of the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11.Therefore, the impugned order insofar as it relates to cancelling the Certificates already issued to the first, second and third petitioners in the
writ petition on 15-4-1978, 11-3-1982 and 18-7-1983 respectively, is set aside. It is made clear that the validity of these Certificates also
undoubtedly depends upon the result of the second appeal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.27261
of 1994 is closed.
12.Insofar as the second appeal is concerned, originally, the defendant was the District Collector, Madurai and subsequently, by C.M.P.No.6181
of 1995 in S.A.No.1020 of 1994, by order dated 25-2-1997, the State of Tamil Nadu and the R.D.O were impleaded as the second and third
respondents respectively in the second appeal.
13.In view of the fact the R.D.O was not impleaded in the initial stage of the proceedings, namely, in the suit, who is the competent authority under
the relevant rules to issue the Certificate sought for in the proceedings, only he can file the written statement regarding the averments raised by the
plaintiff in the suit in his plaint. Since such a written statement cannot now be filed, at the second appeal, the matter has to be remitted back to the
trial Court for enabling the third respondent in the second appeal/R.D.O to file written statement and thereafter, the Court can decide the issue.
14.Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the judgement and decree of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are set aside. The parties
are directed to go back to the initial stage where the defendants will be entitled to file written statement and contest the matter. Accordingly, the
parties are at liberty to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. The second appeal is ordered accordingly. The substantial questions of law
raised in the second appeal are answered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.12762 to 12763 of 1994 are closed.
15.In view of the fact that more than eight years have lapsed since the date of filing of the second appeal, (suit was filed almost ten years earlier),
the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of records along with a copy of this order.