63rd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra52667157861695 Tamil Nadu170828731119 Gujarat144686636888 Delhi140536771276 Rajasthan73004056167 Madhya Pradesh68593571300 Uttar Pradesh64973660169 West Bengal38161414278 Andhra Pradesh2886189256 Bihar273773313 Karnataka218270544 Punjab2081191340 Telangana1920116456 Jammu and Kashmir166880923 Odisha14386497 Haryana121380216 Kerala8975326 Assam549634 Jharkhand4051484 Uttarakhand349584 Chhatisgarh292670 Chandigarh2661874 Himachal Pradesh223634 Tripura1981650 Goa67190 Puducherry49170 Manipur3640 Meghalaya15121 Nagaland300 Arunachal Pradesh210 Mizoram110 Sikkim100
Nation Current Affairs 31 Aug 2019 Chennai: No BC certi ...

Chennai: No BC certificate for mere conversion

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Aug 31, 2019, 2:28 am IST
Updated Aug 31, 2019, 2:28 am IST
Petitioner did not indicate his sub-sect, says High Court.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: Pointing out that neither during his conversion to Islam, nor during the publication of his conversion in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, he has mentioned anything regarding the sub-sect Labbai, the Madras high court dismissed a petition filed by a person seeking a direction to the Tashsildar, Thirukkazhukundram, Kan-cheepuram district, to issue Community Certificate to him, his wife and his children as BC (Backward Class) Muslim Labbai.

Dismissing the petition filed by Rilvan, a division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and C.Saravanan said initially at the time of conversion into Islam, the petitioner did not particularly mention about the sub-sect “Labbai”, which dis-entitles him from claiming the relief of issuance of community certificate to the petitioner and his family, more particularly, in the Jammath, he did not mention his sub-sect while conversion to Islam.

 

According to petitioner, he is a Hindu by birth and originally belonged to BC 24 Manai Telugu Chettiyar Community. His marriage was solemnised with his wife Ramjiya, whose original name is Ramya, who belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) Hindu Adi Dravida Community and due to their wedlock, two children were born to them, namely Harshat (previous name Kavin Raji) aged about 13 years and Harshidha, aged about 4 years.

On October 15, 2012, out of his own volition, the petitioner got converted to Muslim Labbai religion from the Hindu religion. After conversion, he was blessed with the second child. Subsequently, on March 23, 2016, he had published his religious conversion in the Official Gazette. On March 28, 2018, he applied for issuance of community certificate to the Tahsildar and he sought the Tahsildar to issue BC community certificate as per a G.O dated July 29, 2008. But the authorities denied the same on the ground that they could issue only as converted Muslim. Subsequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer also rejected his representation. Hence, he filed the present petition.

The bench said the petitioner got converted to Muslim religion on October 15, 2012 with sub-sect Labbai. Neither during the conversion to Islam, nor during the publication of his conversion in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, he has mentioned anything regarding the sub-sect Labbai. Even in the certificate given by Pudupattinam Zamath, there was no mention of the sub-sect Labbai. Hence, the petitioner will not be entitled to Backward Class Community Certificate merely on conversion, the bench added.

The bench said only if there was an endorsement by the Jamath indicating the Backward Class as Labbai, the community certificate can be issued by mentioning the said sub-sect. In the absence of such endorsement by the Jamath, the authorities cannot issue community certificate as sought for by the petitioner. Though the petitioner relies on G.O dated July 29, 2008 stating that Hindu BC community can convert to any of the seven sects of Islam as mentioned therein in the list, in which Labbai was one among them, in the absence of specific sub-sect during the conversion to Islam, he has to be treated as Muslim which comes under the Forward community.

Even during the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Nerumbur on his petition to RDO, the petitioner simply stated that his family embraced Muslim religion and that they changed their names as Muslim names, even though they published their names in the government gazette. “Hence, for the above reasons, now this court cannot give such a direction prayed for by the petitioner,” the bench added. 

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT