(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by 2nd respondent in Pa.Mu.No.5548/2023/A1 dated 19.12.2023 and quash the same, consequentially issue direction directing the respondents to issue communicate certificate in favour of petitioners by considering the petitioners representations dated 17.07.2023.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 19.12.2023 wherein the application of the petitioners seeking for issuance of community certificate came to be rejected.

3. Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order rejecting the issuance of community certificate on the ground that the petitioners can file application only in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District is against G.O.(Ms.)No.104 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.08.2023.

4. By relying on the decisions of this Court dated 10.07.2017 in W.P.Nos.17355 to 17357 of 2017 and 30.04.2025 in W.P. (MD)No.24945 of 2024, he further submitted that rejecting the application on the ground that the application has not been filed in their ancestral district will amount to defeating the statutory and constitutional benefits guaranteed to the petitioners. This Court had directed the authorities that the application cannot be rejected by placing reliance on G.O.(Ms.)No.61 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 04.04.2006, as it is only an administrative instruction and wherever the application is filed, the competent authority of that district is bound to consider the application on merits. Therefore, the impugned order is in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court affecting the constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioners sought for community certificate certifying as “Hindu Kannikkar”, which is notified only in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District and the second respondent before whom the petitioners have filed application is not a competent authority to grant such a certificate. It is for the petitioners to file proper application before the native notified district, which would be considered on its own merits.

6. Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

7. The petitioners have filed application seeking for issuance of the community certificate certifying as “Hindu Kannikkar” Tribal community. They are now residing in Kondalampatty Village of Salem District and they have submitted application before the second respondent for grant of the community certificate. However, the second respondent, by referring to the proceedings dated 05.11.2011, had rejected the application, stating that since the “Hindu Kannikkar” Tribal community is present only in Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District and even if the petitioners are residing in a different district, the certificate can be issued only in the notified district and therefore, the second respondent is not a competent person to issue such a certificate.

8. In this regard, the perusal of the list of the Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Tamil Nadu reveals that Kannikkar community has been included in the said list at Entry 7 under Part XIV of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 (108 of 1976), and entry is confined to the persons belonging to the Kannikkar community who are permanent residents of Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District. Salem District is not included in the list in which the petitioners are residing.

9. Any inclusion or exclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes in relation to any State can be done only by way of a Parliamentary Enactment under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, when the Kannikkar community in Entry 7 to the Scheduled Tribes list for the State of Tamil Nadu is confined to persons belonging to the Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District, only the competent authority in the notified district would have jurisdiction to issue the community certificate for Kannikkar Scheduled Tribal community.

10. The contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decisions of this court may not apply to the facts of the present case, as in those cases the certificates sought for in respect of a community were not restricted to any particular district. Therefore in such circumstances, simply because a person belonging to the notified community had migrated to some other districts, they need not be forced to approach the native district for the issuance of community certificate, as authorities under each district were entitled to issue the certificate, as those communities were not confined to any particular district.

11. However, in the instant case, the petitioners seek for a community certificate certifying as “Hindu Kannikkar” Tribal community, which is confined only to Kanyakumari District and Sengottai Taluk of Tirunelveli District in the Scheduled Tribes list notified for Tamil Nadu. In such circumstances, the second respondent was right in rejecting the application, holding that he does not have power or jurisdiction to issue such a certificate, as the petitioners have to submit their application only before the competent authority in their native place for issuance of “Hindu Kannikkar” tribal community certificate.

12. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications are closed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioners in filing proper application before the competent authority in the notified districts for issuance of the community certificate, which would be considered on its own merits.

13. Before parting with the case, we find that, when admittedly the second respondent was not vested with the jurisdiction to issue the certificate, the same was rejected, after a detailed enquiry, which eventually only delays the process. The applicants may be in need of the certificates for education and employment purposes. It is submitted that now the applications are made only through online for the issuance of the community certificates. In such circumstances, the authorities may revisit the issue and take necessary suitable remedial measures.