WP/17754/1996 of R. SHIYAMALARATNAM Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, on 29 November 2002

:O R D E R

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In this writpetition, the question relates to validity of the order of the DistrictCollector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. The petitioner has challengedthe order of cancellation of community certificate dated 13.11.1996.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thatthe District Collector has passed the impugned order cancelling the communitycertificate, but as per the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 S.C.94 (MADHURI PATIL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT) thequestion of validity of the community certificate should be gone into by theappropriate committee constituted in accordance with the said decision.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submittedthat even assuming that the District Collector had jurisdiction, the order ofthe District Collector suffers from serious illegalities as several documentshave not been taken into consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that the matter had gone to the Collector pursuant to the remand order passed by thisCourt. Therefore, determination by the Collector cannot be said to beillegal. He has further submitted that at the time the Collector decided thematter, the State Government had not formed any committee and therefore, itmust be taken that the Collector has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5. It is of course true that the matter had been remanded to theCollector for fresh determination. The non-constitution of a committee tillApril, 1997 cannot be a ground to ignore the decision of the Supreme Courtreported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94. As a matter of fact, subsequently in2000(10)J.T.280 (BASWANT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA), cancellation of thecommunity certificate is found to be void as the matter was not decided by thecommittee as per the decision in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94.

6. I had the occasion to deal with similar matter in the decision reported in 2002 W.L.R. 380 (K. PRAKALATHAN v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TIRUNELVELI KATTABOMMAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS), where following the decisionreported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94 and the decision of the learned Judge of thisCourt in judgment dated 14.8.2001 in W.P.No.16904 of 19 95 (N. SETHURAM v.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI KATTABOMMAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS), it washeld that the order passed by the Collector cancelling the communitycertificate after the decision of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 SC 94 iswithout jurisdiction. As a matter of fact similar view has been taken in thejudgment dated 26.6.2002 in W.P.No.11966 of 1995 and in the judgment dated4.10.2002 in W.P.No.17568 of 1995.

7. Having regard to all these aspects, the order passed by theDistrict Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District dated 13.11.1996 isquashed and it is directed that the matter is to be redetermined by theappropriate State Level Committee in accordance with law as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of six months from the date ofcommunication of this order.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently,W.M.P.NO.24440 of 1996 is closed.

Index : YesInternet : Yesdpk

To

1. The District Collector,Tirunelveli Kattabomman District,Tirunelveli.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirunelveli Kattabomman District,Tirunelveli.

3. The Sub-Collector,Cheranmahadevi,Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.

4. Indian Overseas Bank,rep. by Chief Manager,Personnel Department,Central Office, P.Box No.3765762, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.