M. Jayaraj @ Ramajayam Vs The Union of India

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.@mdashHeard Mr. M. Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) for the respondents. This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking Community Certificate as Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravidar Origin.

2. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that the field enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Puducherry-third respondent herein at the petitioner''s village and it was ascertained that the petitioner is presently professing Christianity and his father also converted to Christianity from Scheduled Caste Hindu. Therefore, as per the prevailing Government Order, the petitioner is eligible to get converted Christianity from Scheduled Caste Certificate (OBC) and not as Scheduled Caste Adi-Dravidar Origin Certificate.

3. When the matter was posted for admission on 9.12.2013, the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) was directed to take notice for the respondents and get the report, which is relied on in the impugned order for rejecting the request. The report submitted by the Village Administrative Officer, Kombakkam Revenue Village, Taluk Office, Puducherry addressed to the Tahsildar, Puducherry was produced before this Court. However, no report drawn by the third respondent is produced. Even the copy of the said report by the Village Administrative Officer addressed to the Tahsildar has not been furnished to the petitioner. The report states that the petitioner is often visiting the church in Othiyampattu village.

4. A similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2013 (1) CWC 111 (A. Jothimani Vs. The Secretary, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department) wherein the Division Bench held that visiting the Church per se cannot be treated as a proof of following that religion. In paragraph-6, it is held thus:

6. ......... The order impugned goes on the footing of an enquiry made which revealed that the Petitioner has been visiting Church and offering rituals as per Christianity. The Constitution recognizes freedom to practice any religion. Visiting places of prayer or worship is a matter of individual choice or preference. Such mobility is available to a person without even changing to any religion from the one in which one is born. We do not understand how visiting Church, per se would result in the conversion from one religion to another. The enquiry merely revealed that the Petitioner observed rituals of the Christianity. Except for this, the report has nowhere stated that the petitioner, in fact, embraced Christianity. In the circumstances, we do not think the claim of the Second respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to a Community Certificate that she belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, could be accepted.

(Emphasis supplied)

The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in K. Vasikaran Vs. The District Level Vigilance Committee, The State of Tamil Nadu, The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission and P. Srinivasan of which one of us (NPVJ) is a party, and held that a person converted into Christianity from Hindu religion, who contested in the Panchayat Election cannot be denied of Hindu Adi Dravidar status merely because he visits church occasionally. Thus, the said reason stated in the impugned order cannot be treated as a valid reason. For deciding the community status, the factors that are to be verified are whether the person is suffering from any kind of social and economic disability and whether the Scheduled Caste Hindus in the locality are treating the person as one among themselves. The second respondent is merely carried away by the said report of the Village Administrative Officer and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Rejection of community/social status community certificate to deserving person will deny his valuable rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and attaches civil consequences. Hence, the second respondent is bound to conduct enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such procedure has not been followed by the second respondent before passing the impugned order. SLP preferred against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court.

In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 21.6.2011 and restore the application on the file of the second respondent to consider the issue afresh and pass fresh orders, bearing in mind the above referred judgments, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.