The District Collector, South Arcot District & Ors. v. Sarangapani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 17.06.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYSecond Appeal No.789 of 20001. The District Collector, South Arcot District.2. The Tahsildar, Panruti.. Appellants/Defendants Vs Sarangapani .. Respondent/PlaintiffSECOND APPEAL filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedureagainst the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1997 made in A.S.No.74 of1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming theJudgment and Decree dated 22.12.1994 made in O.S.No.3 of 1993 of thelearned District Munsif Court, Panruti.For Appellants:Mr.R. MuthaianAddnl.Government Pleader (CS)For Respondent : Mr. R. Yashod VardhanJ U D G M E N T The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment anddecree dated 18.08.1997 made in A.S.No.74 of 1996 on the file of theSubordinate Judge, Panruti, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated22.12.1994 made in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on the file of the DistrictMunsif Court, Panruti.2. In the above second appeal, the defendants in the suitare the appellants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.3. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.3 of 1993 on thefile of the District Munsif Court, Panruti against the defendant topass a decree for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff belongsto Katunayakkan community denotified as Schedule Tribes and formandatory injunction directing the defendants to issue communitycertificate to the plaintiff as Katunayakkan community. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:- According to the plaintiff, he is residing at PuliyurVillage and belongs to Katunayakkan community notified by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu as Scheduled Tribe. The plaintiff hasstudied education upto 8th Standard and in all his school records,the community of the plaintiff has been noted as Katunayakkan.According to the plaintiff, his relatives, who were living inThirukovilur, Panruti Taluk, belong to Katunayakkan community andhave obtained their community certificates from the concernedTahsildar. The plaintiff is in need of his community certificate tobe produced before his employer so as get benefits such as promotionbenefits, better service benefits, etc. According to the plaintiff,he applied to Sub-collector of Cuddalore for the communitycertificate on 14.02.1992. The said application was rejected.According to the plaintiff, the Sub Collector, Cuddalore have notmade any enquiry with regard to the issuance of the communitycertificate. According to the plaintiff, the rejection of theapplication is against the principle of natural justice. Again theplaintiff issued statutory notice calling upon the Sub Collector,Cuddalore to issue Community Certificate. But the said applicationwas also rejected by the Sub Collector on 10.09.1992. Therefore, theplaintiff had filed the above suit. 5. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:-According to the defendants, they are not the competentauthorities for issuing Katunayakkan Community certificate and onlythe Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore is the competent authorityto issue community certificate. According to the defendants, thesecond defendant has confidentially enquired about the community ofthe plaintiff and found that the applicant belongs to Kuravarcommunity, which is Schedule Caste community and also reported thematter to the Sub Collector. On that basis, the Sub Collectorrejected the application. According to the defendants, the intentionof the plaintiff is to get a false community certificate from thecompetent authority. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissalof the suit.6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined threewitnesses and 10 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A10. On the sideof the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral anddocumentary evidence of both parties, decreed the suit as prayed for. 7. Aggrieved over the judgment and degree of the trialcourt, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.NO.74 of 1996 on thefile of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti. The lower appellate courtalso after taking into consideration the materials available onrecord confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court anddismissed the appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the courtsbelow, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.9. Heard Mr.R. Muthaian, learned Additional GovernmentPleader (CS) appearing for the appellants and Mr.R. Yashad Vardhan,learned counsel appearing for the respondent.10. At the time of admission of above Second Appeal, thefollowing substantial question of law arose for consideration."i). Whether the suit is maintainable in view ofthe judgment of the Supreme Court in 1997 I M.L.W. Page686?"11.Though the question of jurisdiction of the civil courthas not been raised before the courts below, it is a legal issue andit can be raised at any stage. I am of the view that the same may beraised in the second appeal.12.Further, at the outset, the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that, inview of the judgements reported in 1997(2) L.W. Page 686 and 2002 (3)C.T.C. Page 411, the suit filed challenging the cancellation order ofthe community certificate and seeking declaration that he belongs toa particular community is not maintainable. 13.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent alsoagreed with the legal submission made by the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader. 14.The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on ajudgement reported in 1997 (2) L.W. Page 686 (The State of Tamil NaduOrs. v. A. Gurusamy), which reads as follows:"3. The only question is whether the suit is maintainable?By operation of Sec.9 of CPC, a suit of civil naturecognizance of which is expressly or by implicationexcluded, cannot be tried by any Civil Court. Thedeclaration of the President of India, under Art.341 and342 of the Constitution, with respect of Lists of theScheduled and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State, thata particular caste or tribe is defined in Art.366 (24) or(25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment bythe Parliament under Art.341(2) and 342(2) of theConstitution. By necessary implication, the jurisdictionof the Civil Court to take cognizance of and give adeclaration stands prohibited. The question hen is whetherthe respondent has been given an opportunity to establishhis case before the authorities cancelled his communitycertificate obtained by him? The order of the DistrictCollector dated 02.12.1991 clearly mentions that an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself hadexamined him. The District Collector does not decide itlike a suit. What he does is an enquiry complying with theprinciples of rational justice. He considered his stand,namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his statuswas declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelievedby the District Collector before cancellation. It is self-serving document. The authority had, therefore, given anopportunity to the respondent to establish his status andfound that the certificate previously obtained was wrongand illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificategiven to the respondent on January 23, 1971. It is thencontended by learned counsel for the respondent that theguidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner inwhich the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms areto be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue DivisionOfficer granted him the certificate. We find that thestand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only toidentify the persons and not to give a declaration as towhich community comes under particular Entry of thePresidential notification. It is then contended that therespondent has been given the right to enjoy the statusright from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppelapplies to him. We find that it has no force. It is afraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraudand obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. Theprinciple of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise wasmade and acted upon to his detriment; the party makingpromise is estopped to resile from the promise. In thiscase, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable becausethere is no promise made by the State that the State wouldproject perpetration of fraud defeating the Constitutionalobjective; no promise was made that his false certificatewill be respected and accepted by the State. On the otherhand, he is liable for prosecution. The courts would notlend assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution andhe cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulentcertificate obtained from the authorities. The declarationissued by the courts below is unconstitutional and withoutjurisdiction ."15.The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on ajudgement reported in 2002 (3) C.T.C. Page 411 (Union of India V. TheRegistrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai), which reads asfollows:"9. There can, therefore be no doubt that the law laid downby the Supreme Court is that a suit for declaration that aperson belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe isimpliedly barred by Articles 341 and 342 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Constitution. The learned counsel for the respondent,however, submitted that decision of the Supreme Court hasbeen considered by two learned single Judges of this Court,who have taken the view that even after that judgement ofthe apex Court, there is no bar to a suit for declarationthat a person belongs to the Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTribe, being entertained by the Civil Court."16.From the above decisions, it could be seen that thesuit filed for declaration to declare that the respondent belongs toKatunayakkan Community is not maintainable. Therefore, the judgmentsand decrees of the Courts below are erroneous, and are liable to beset aside. Accordingly the judgements and decrees of the courtsbelow are set aside. The substantial question of law is answered infavour of the appellants. The second appeal is allowed. However,there will be no order as to costs.ars Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To1. The Subordinate Judge, Panruti2. The District Munsif, Panruti.3. The District Collector, South Arcot at Cuddalore.4. The Tahsildar, Panruti.5. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.S.A. No.789 of 2000SA(CO)GS/10/07/09