PREEMA CRASTA v. STATE OF KERALA

BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 Certificate issued by the 4th respondent – Village Officer, whereby, she has been certified to be a member of the ‘Roman Catholic’ Community. She asserts that she belongs to the ‘Latin Catholic’ Community, which is evident from Ext.P1 Education Records; and that this is fortified by the fact that her sister has also been issued Ext.P13 Certificate from the Village Office, Nekraje- Padi Village, certifying her to be a ‘Latin Catholic’.

Sri. Krishnakumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, however, conceded that, as per the documents produced by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Village WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -3- Officer, namely Exts.R4(a) and R4(b), the parents of the petitioner have been shown to be ‘Roman Catholics’; but explained that this was only on account of a mistake committed 40 years ago, which they did not rectify because, they were not aware of the consequences.

Sri. Krishnakumar argued that, however, when Exts.P10, P11 and P12 Certificates of Baptism and declarations by the Parish Church with respect to petitioner’s parents, reflect indubitably that they belong to the ‘Latin Catholic’ Community – with the Church itself being part of such community - the Village Officer was in error in having issued Ext.P4, without verifying any of such relevant facts. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be set aside and the WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -4- Village Officer be directed to reconsider the matter in terms of law.

In response, Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, argued that Ext.P4 suffers from no error because, when the parents of the petitioner are ‘Roman Catholics’, it would not stand to reason that she would belong to the ‘Latin Catholic’ Community. He then submitted that Exts.P10, P11, and P12 documents were never produced before the Village Officer at the time when Ext.P4 was issued; and therefore, the said Authority cannot be found fault with not having adverted to the same.

The learned Government Pleader then added that, even if the aforesaid documents had been produced before the Village Officer, his opinion could not have been different WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -5- because, such documents are not ones which obtain the benefit of presumption in law; while Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) are Certificates which attract such benefit. He contended that, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable, particularly when the petitioner admits unequivocally that Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) documents belong to her parents.

I have evaluated and considered the afore rival submissions very carefully.

It is indubitable that the petitioner relies upon Ext.P1 School Record, as also on Ext.P13 Certificate obtained by her sister, to assert that she belongs to the ‘Latin Catholic’ Community. However, the Village Officer relied upon Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) Certificates of her parents, wherein, they WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -6- have been certified to be ‘Roman Catholics’. I cannot, therefore, find fault with the Village Officer for having issued Ext.P4 because, he had no other option, but to go by the aforesaid documents of the petitioner’s parents.

That said, however, the explanation of the petitioner, that Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) were settled by the College Authorities with respect to her parents, nearly 40 years ago and that they had accepted the same inadvertently without being aware of its consequences; and since she tries to fortify her arguments based on Exts.P10 to P12 – without saying that they are admissible or acceptable in law – I am of the firm view that she must be given another opportunity of being able to establish her case before the WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -7- Village Officer.

This is more so because, it is conceded that there is no appellate remedy against Ext.P4, and that the petitioner can challenge it only before this Court. For the afore reasons, without entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions any further, I allow this writ petition, not because I have found against Ext.P4 conclusively; however, only to pave way for a fresh consideration of the petitioner’s application, adverting to all the documents that have been produced before this Court - which she did not do when the Village Officer had initially considered her application. Consequentially, the Village Officer will reconsider the matter, after affording the WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2023 -8- petitioner an opportunity of being heard and of producing all relevant documents - including the ones that have been produced before this Court; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.