Santosh.K. v. State of Kerala, The Tahsildar, The Director, Directorate of KIRTADS

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 15760 of 2013** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **SANTHOSH.K., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOZHELODU PARAMBU, P.O.PALLATHERI, PALAKKAD, PIN:678 007.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR,** **TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD, P.O. PALAKKAD, CIVIL STTION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 001.** ## **3. THE DIRECTOR,** **DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE-673 017.** **BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ROBIN RAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Msd.** **13.06.2018** **WP(C).No. 15760 of 2013 (T)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF S.S.L.C. BOOK OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS CASTE NAME.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT A.P.HIGH SCHOOL, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF S.S.L.C. BOOK OF PETITIONER'S BROTHER KANNANKUTTY.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.05.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.03.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.06.2013 AND REPORT NO.D1.742/13 DATED 8.5.2013 FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VIGILANCE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 29.08.2013 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.03.2014 PREFERRED BEFORE THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, KIRTHADS, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 28.03.2014. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.09.2014 OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, SC-ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 15.10.2014 BEFORE THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES, SG-ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 18.10.2014. EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.03.2015 FROM THE SECRETARY OF SC-ST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VERIFICATION OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 17.03.2016.** **WP(C).No. 15760 of 2013 (T)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd. 13.06.2018** ## Devan Ramachandran, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15760 of 2013 T ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner claims that he belongs to the 'Arunthathiyar' Community, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste community in Kerala. He has produced a copy of his SSLC Book, in substantiation of his claim, as Exhibit P1. 2. In short, the petitioner's claim is that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and that he should be issued a certificate under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Issuance of Community Certificate Act, 1996, but that the competent authorities have refused to do so without assigning any reason. 3. On such assertion, he has filed this writ petition praying that respondents 2 and 3 be directed to issue him a Caste Certificate within a stipulated time and additionally that Exhibit P7 be quashed. WPC 15760/13 2 4. An examination of Exhibit P7 report would show that it is issued by the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS, which is the specialised agency under the provisions of the Act, stating that, in his enquiry, the petitioner dos not belong to the Arunthathiyar community. The petitioner says that Exhibit P7 is eggregiously improper and illegal and that even though Exhibit P9 appeal was preferred against it, the same was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee saying that they are not competent to consider such appeals. 5. I have heard Smt.Dhanya P.Asokan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The sole controversy in this writ petition is whether the petitioner belongs to Arunthathiyar community, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste community in Kerala. Even though the petitioner claims that he is a member of such community, in Exhibit P7 the WPC 15760/13 3 Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS states that he is not so based on some investigation he is stated to have conducted. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements in Exhibit P7 have not been recorded after a duly constituted enquiry or after conducting an appropriate anthropological study but that it has been issued merely as an opinion of the Vigilance Officer, which is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. She points out that, as is clear from Exhibit P6 report of the Village Officer, the petitioner has been certified to be a member of the Arunthathiyar community and even this certificate has not been looked into by the Vigilance Officer of the KIRTDAS, while issuing Exhibit P7. The learned counsel says that it is, therefore, that Exhibit P9 appeal was preferred before the Scrutiny Committee but that the same was rejected saying that they have no jurisdiction to consider it, through Exhibit P12 order. WPC 15760/13 4 8. The learned Special Government in refutation of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner says that Exhibit P7 clearly shows that the Vigilance officer had made enquiries and that he had concluded only based on the inputs he had received, that the petitioner is not a member of the Arunthathiyar community. 9. When I examine the contentions of the learned counsel as above, I must say that the assertion of the learned Special Government Pleader that Exhibit P7 is based on a valid enquiry does not appear to be tenable. Nowhere in the said report does the Vigilance Officer say that his opinion is based on an anthropological study or on the basis of a detailed enquiry. On the contrary, it only says that he had made certain personal enquiries and inspections and that he had arrived at the opinion that the petitioner cannot be seen to be a member of the Arunthathiyar community. WPC 15760/13 5 10. Going by the provisions of the Act, I am not sure if Exhibit P7 report can obtain favour in law. This is because, at best Exhibit P7 contains an opinion of the Vigilance Officer, which does not appear to be founded on any anthropological study or an enquiry as contemplated by the Act. In the celebrated judgment in **Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and Others** (AIR 1997 SC 2581), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 5, had issued the following directions, among several others, as regards the manner in which a Vigilance Cell and the Vigilance Inspector is to function: “Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all WPC 15760/13 6 particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial and dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.” An examination of Exhibit P7 would not show that it subscribes, in any manner, to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid and, therefore, it is obvious that I will not be justified in offering any imprimatur to the contents of Exhibit P7 automatically. 11. To exacerbate the issue, when the petitioner approached the Scrutiny Committee, it rejected his appeal, namely Exhibit P9, on the ground that they have no power to consider the same, through Exhibit P12 order. The final result, therefore, is that the petitioner is burdened with Exhibit P7 report, which remain uncontested even now and which has been issued, in the absence of anything contrary to show otherwise, based on certain personal opinion and observations of the concerned Vigilance Officer. I am sure that Exhibit P7, WPC 15760/13 7 therefore, would not answer the requirements stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Kum. Madhuri Patil** (supra). 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am constrained to set aside Exhibit P7 as having been issued without following the imperative mandate in **Kum. Madhuri Patil** (supra) and to direct the competent authority of the KIRTDAS to conduct a proper anthropological study or a detailed enquiry, as is mandated under the provisions of the Act, into question as to whether the petitioner is a member of the Arunthathiyar community and make available such a copy of the report to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be at liberty to deal with the report appropriately, as he is advised thereafter. This writ petition is thus ordered. Sd/Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv