CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The District Collector Thuthookkudi Thuthookkudi District.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Kovilpatti

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUW.A.No.894 of 2002and W.A.M.P.No.1730 of 2002C.Mugesh.. AppellantVersus1. The District Collector Thuthookkudi Thuthookkudi District.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Kovilpatti Taluk.3. The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram Thuthookudi District...RespondentsPrayer :Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patentagainst the order of this Court dated 07.12.2001 made inW.P.No.23252 of 2001 to issue a writ of Certiorari callingfor the records relating to the impugned order dated7.12.2000 Ref.ROC No.C5/6894/2000 passed by the 1strespondent holding that the petitioner is not eligible forthe OBC certificate and that departmental proceedings shouldbe initiated against the petitioner and quash the same.For Appellant : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.K.Balakrishnan JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered byElipe Dharma Rao.J.,)The writ appeal is directed against the order of thelearned Single Judge dated 07.12.2001 made in W.P.No.23252 of2001, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writpetition as it was not maintainable.2. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The appellant was appointed as a Skin Diver by an order dated04.11.1999 in the Central Marine Fisheries Research Instituteand in pursuance of which the appellant joined duty on08.11.1999 and was working as such. While that being so, theRevenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti issued a letter dated14.06.2000 to appear before him for certain clarificationsregarding the OBC certificate dated 17.09.1999, on the basisof complaints received by Revenue Divisional Officer. Anotice was issued to him on 14.06.2000. After receipt of thesaid notice, the appellant approached the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Kovilpatti and produced the certificate issued bythe Special Tahsildar dated 01.10.1999 confirming that hisname had been deleted from the ration card at the instanceof his father and he is living separately and also produceddocuments to show that he was eligible for OBC certificate asper the rules and regulations. After the said enquiry, therewas no notice whatsoever relating to his OBC Certificate andhe continued to work. Unfortunately an order of terminationterminating his service from the said institute was passed on30.01.2001, on the ground that the 3rd respondent herein hadcancelled the OBC Certificate issued to him with a directionto the 1st respondent to initiate departmental action againsthim. Only after receipt of the termination order, theappellant came to know that the 3rd respondent had cancelledhis OBC Certificate without giving any opportunity of beingheard or issuing any show cause notice. When the officers ofthe respondent were approached to have the copy of theproceedings of the 1st respondent and also the 3rd respondentin cancelling the OBC Certificate, they refused to furnishany of the facts relating to the alleged proceedings of therespondents. 3. Subsequently, W.P.No.2900 of 2001 was filed seeking adirection to furnish copy of the proceedings passed by therespondent therein cancelling the OBC Certificate, which wasallowed by directing the respondent to furnish the copy ofthe final order if any passed cancelling his OBC Certificate,within a period of one month from the date of receipt of acopy of the said order. In the meantime, the appellant filedO.A.No.226 of 2001 before the Central AdministrativeTribunal, challenging the order passed by his employer on thebasis of the order of cancellation of his OBC Certificate, inwhich his employer has filed a copy of the order dated07.12.2000 passed by the first respondent/District Collectoraddressed to the employer, stating that the appellant is noteligible for OBC Certificate and directing the employer toinitiate departmental action against the appellant. 4. Challenging the said order dated 07.12.2000, thepresent W.P.No.23252 of 2001 was preferred by the appellant,wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writpetition and observed as follows:-"According to the petitioner, he has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not received any copy of the said orderof the District Collector. I am unableto appreciate the stand of the counselthat in spite of the orders passed bythis court, the petitioner was not ableto get a copy of the order of theDistrict Collector. The only course thepetitioner should have done is to enforcethe order of this Court passed in theearlier writ petition. Without doing so,he has taken a different route ofchallenging the communication of theDistrict Collector addressed to theSenior Administrative Officer, informingthe fact of cancellation of his communitycertificate. As per the directions ofthis Court in W.P.No.2900 of 2001 dated15.2.2001 he should have been furnishedwith the copy by 25.03.2001. The orderof the District Collector could havegiven reasons for cancellation and asagainst which he has a right of appeal tothe State Level Committee. I amtherefore of the view that the writpetition is not maintainable and is filedonly to drag on the proceedings. Thereis no merit in the writ petition. Thewrit petition is dismissed." 5. The appellant challenging the said order passed inW.P.No.23252 of 2001 has come forward with the present writappeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erredin not considering the fact that the appellant was not givenany opportunity by the District Collector before passing theorder dated 07.12.2000 and moreover the report of the RevenueDivisional Officer has also not been furnished to him; thatthere is no necessity for him to file separate contemptpetition for the purpose of enforcing the order dated15.02.2001 in W.P.No.2900 of 2001 and obtaining a copy of theorder passed by the District Collector, when the appellanthas already obtained a copy of the same from the typed set ofpapers filed by the respondent in O.A.No.226 of 2001 beforethe Central Administrative Tribunal.6. We have heard the submission of the learned counselfor the respondents and perused the materials available onrecord.7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the considered view that already the order impugnedin the writ petition was not addressed to the petitioner andon the other hand it is the intimation to the employer of thepetitioner with regard to the cancellation of the communitycertificate issued by the Tahsildar and to take necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ departmental action. Therefore, the findings of the learnedSingle Judge holding that the writ petition is notmaintainable is in order and therefore we see no reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.The writ appeal is dismissed. If departmental action isinitiated pursuance to the above said order, the appellant isentitled to agitate the same in appropriate proceedings. Nocosts. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isalso dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarrgTo 1. The District Collector Thuthookkudi Thuthookkudi District.2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, Kovilpatti Taluk.3. The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram Thuthookudi District.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 43543SSV (CO)km/24.7.W.A.No.894 of 2002