WP/13232/2026 of SIDHAPPAN Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

WP No.13232 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.13232 of 2026 Sidhappan D.No.3/176, Thoppur Railway Station Sekkarapatti Kadayampatti Salem-636 352 : Petitioner Vs 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District : Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callin g for records relating to the petitioner’s application No.TN-5202504169993 dated 16.4 .2025 rejected on 14.2.2026 by the 1 st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1 st respondent to issue ST Kurumans community certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the certificate dated 7.4.2025 issued to his own sister Ms.Shantha and the certificate issued to his cousin brother Mr.Ulagappan and the proceedings of the State Level scrutiny committee dated 16.10.2023 in respect of his certificate. For Petitioner : Ms.K.Nithyashree For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.13232 of 2026 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14.02.2 026, passed by the first respondent, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for issuing community certificate. The reason for rejection o f the application is that the genuineness certificate issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee in respect of close blood relatives re lied upon by the petitioner has not been enclosed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that copies of such certificates issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee are also available on record, but, notwithstanding the same, the respondents have rejected the application. 3. Learned State Counsel would fairly submit that no r eason has been assigned in the order of rejection and, therefore , appropriate orders may be passed in the petition. Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.13232 of 2026 4. Having considered the submissions of both the partie s, we find that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking one and the authority has not assigned any reason as to why the a pplication has been rejected. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 14.02.2026 only on this ground. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 14.02.2026 is hereby set aside. The competent authority is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The competent authority shall consider the application as ex peditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from th e date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no ord er as to costs. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 09.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.13232 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J. (tar) To 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Salem District 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District WP No.13232 of 2026 09.04.2026 Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis