1. This is a shocking case which may not find a parallel anywhere in the world of a married woman obtaining a certificate of widowhood from a Revenue Official in the lower echelons by fraudulently invoking the presumption under S. 108 of the Evidence Act, knowing fully well that her husband is alive, with a view to secure admission in a Government Medical College under the quota reserved for widows.

2. According to the affidavit of the writ petitioner, she was given in marriage on 11-9-1975 to one R.L Selvaraj of Bhavani, who was at that time a Final Year M.B.B.S student in Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada. The affidavit proceeds to state that the husband had demanded huge sums of money and jewellery, gold and diamond, vessels, silver, brass and stainless steel, besides furniture, wooden and steel, and that her father spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs for the marriage. According to her, within a few days after the marriage, the husband started ill-treating her both physically and mentally. Admittedly, a female child was born to them in 1976. In the affidavit, the petitioner has not clearly stated as to when she got separated from her husband. But there is an averment that right from 1976 his whereabouts were not known. In the same paragraph, the petitioner states that suddenly in 1982 her husband made his appearance and feigned very repentant and hurled promises to keep a happy matrimonial house and suggested that setting up a matrimonial house needed lot of money and again ‘beguiled her parents to part with huge cash of nearly Rs. 75000 and also gold jewellery worth 85 sovereigns.” It is stated further that he brought her to Madras and made her stay with him for about ten days, but never treated her as his wife. It is not necessary to dilate further on the allegations made by the petitioner against her husband.

3. The petitioner, with a view to join the Medical College, applied to the Tahsildar, Coimbatore, for a certificate of widowhood making a representation that her husband was not heard of for about ten years. The Tahsildar issued a certificate on 26-7-1986. It is stated in the certificate that the petitioner had not heard of her husband for about ten years, and under S. 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a person is not heard of for over seven years, then he is deemed to be dead, and that the petitioner was, therefore, a widow and she bad not remarried. Utilising the said certificate, the petitioner got admission in the Coimbatore Medical College.

4. Her husband got scent of the petitioner's activities and filed an application before the Sub-Collector, Coimbatore, on 1-4-1987 for cancelling the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The Sub Collector conducted an enquiry in which the petitioner, some witnesses, the Village Administrative Officer, who recommended the grant of certificate by the Tahsildar, the Special Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar, were examined and at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Sub-Collector found that the certificate was issued by the Tahsildar only on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner and the evidence of two persons known to him, and that the Tahsildar did not enquire the parents of the petitioner, or the parents of her husband, before granting the certificate. The Sub-Collector found that as the husband was alive and as there was no-proper enquiry by the Tahsildar, the certificate was not valid. Consequently, the Sub-Collector cancelled the certificate of widow-, hood issued to the petitioner by order dated 18-6-1987.

5. It is that order which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner. The prayer in the Writ petition is for the issue Of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent, the Sub-Collector, Coimbatore, in his proceedings in the Na.Ka No. 7067/87.A4.dt. 18-6-1987 and quashing the order passed by him.

6. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the Sub-Collector conducted proper enquiry in which the petitioner also took part and that the Sub-Collector being the higher authority to the Tahsildar, was competent to cancel the certificate as it was found to be false.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Sub-Collector had no power to entertain an application from the husband on 1-4-1987 against the grant of the certificate by the Tahsildar on 25-7-1986. According to learned counsel, the Sub-Collector is not an appellate authority and that the orders passed by the Tahsildar cannot be interfered with by the Sub-Collector. Learned counsel submits that there is no rule or provision of law empowering the Sub-Collector to entertain any application against the order of the Tahsildar and that too beyond a particular time limit and cancel the same. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of a Bench of this Court in Jacob v. Madurai University 1978-1-M.L.J 440 for the purpose of sustaining the petitioner's admission in the Medical College though tie prayer in the writ petition is confined to the quashing of the order of the Sub-Collector.

8. The contentions put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the following reasons—first, there is no rule or provision of law as such enabling the Tahsildar to issue a certificate of widowhood. My attention is drawn to the provision in the Annexure to the Prospectus issued by the Government for admission into

The provision for production of a certificate of the Tahsildar was made so that he could verify the factum of death of the husband after due enquiry and certify the widowhood of the applicant.

9. Secondly, the Sub-Collector is the authority to whom appeals are provided against the orders of the Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 1977. Under B.S.O 95-A of the Board Standing Orders, it is the duty of the Tahsildar to report promptly to the Collector of any casualty among the parties to any litigation to which the Government is a party. Under B.S.O 138, the Collector is the authority to appoint Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsli-dars from a list approved by the Board of Revenue. Under the same B.S.O Collectors are competent to transfer a Tahsildar or a Deputy Tahsildar to a ministerial appointment on equal pay. By virtue of the Madras Subordinate Collectors and Revenue Malversation (Amendment) Regulation 1828, a subordinate Deputy or Assistant Collector in charge of a particular division of a district shall ex officio have authority to exercise within the division under his charge all the powers granted to Collectors. Under S. 9 of the Madras Collector's Regulation 1803, Collectors have authority to superintend and control all persons employed in the executive administration of public revenue. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Sub Collector is the superior Officer having power of superintendence and control over the Tahsildars. I have no hesitation in holding that the Sub-Collector is entitled to cancel the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. It is admitted that the husband of the petitioner is alive and the certificate based on a presumption is wholly invalid. It is stated in the affidavit of the petitioner that the Tahsildar could have himself cancelled it. When that is the admitted position, the contention that the Sub-Collector has no power to do so is absurd. The moment any official comes to know that the certificate is factually erroneous, to say the least he must see to it that the Certificate is cancelled so that it cannot be used in any forum.

10. Even assuming for argument's sake, that the Sub-Collector has no jurisdiction to cancel the certificate of the Tahsildar, this Court will not interfere with the order of the Sub Collector. Art. 226 of the Constitution is not an asylum for cheats and defrauders. Persons with sullied hands cannot find their haven in this Court in its exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court will in its wise judicial discretion refuse to help perpetuation of fraud. The effect of a writ, if issued, as prayed for by the petitioner, would be to revive a false certificate fraudulently obtained. Such a catastrophe would never be allowed to take place by this Court. Even on the averments found in the affidavit of the petitioner, the writ petition deserves nothing but a dismissal.

11. The ruling cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application here as the facts in that case bear no resemblance to the facts herein.

12. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000.

RR/VCS.