Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

S. Chandrakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and ors.

S. Chandrakumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 20, 1994
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/824519

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Chandrakumar

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare

Legal References

Reported In
(1994)2MLJ429

Excerpt

- .....the enquiry before 2nd respondent was postponed from 22.12.1986 to 2.3.1987 and later an adjournment was promised by the 2nd respondent so as to give him an opportunity to participate in the enquiry to establish that he belonged to scheduled tribe. without further opportunity, an order was passed and served on the petitioner indicating that he failed to satisfy that he belonged to scheduled tribe. consequently, the certificate issued by the 5th respondent was cancelled.2. the contention of the petitioner is that he was not provided with sufficient opportunity to establish that he belongs to konda reddy community. the authorities should be vigilant to verify about the caste then and there, at least within a reasonable time. that has not been done. if that is so, the burden is on the respondents to establish that he does not belong to a particular community. in the impugned order, there is no reference that the copy of the report was served on the petitioner. the impugned order is set aside. the 2nd respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also supply him a copy of the report and then to decide the community to which the petitioner belongs in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. the impugned order is quashed. the writ petition is allowed. parties to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

C. Shivappa, J.

1. Petition is seeking for quashing an order dated 20.3.1987 and seeking for an opportunity to prove that he belongs to Konda Reddy community. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community called Konda Reddy and a certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Thuraiyur. On the basis of the certificate, after completion of the Pie-University education, petitioner joined medical course at Stanley Medical College. At the instance of the 4th respondent, a letter was written to the 2nd respondent to verify whether the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy community. When he was pursuing his studies, a letter was served on the father of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that it is decided to cancel the certificate of community issued by the 5th respondent. Though the petitioner engaged a counsel, the enquiry before 2nd respondent was postponed from 22.12.1986 to 2.3.1987 and later an adjournment was promised by the 2nd respondent so as to give him an opportunity to participate in the enquiry to establish that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Without further opportunity, an order was passed and served on the petitioner indicating that he failed to satisfy that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the certificate issued by the 5th respondent was cancelled.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not provided with sufficient opportunity to establish that he belongs to Konda Reddy community. The authorities should be vigilant to verify about the caste then and there, at least within a reasonable time. That has not been done. If that is so, the burden is on the respondents to establish that he does not belong to a particular community. In the impugned order, there is no reference that the copy of the report was served on the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also supply him a copy of the report and then to decide the community to which the petitioner belongs in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial