M.Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents rejecting for issuance of SC certificate pursuance to the petitioners applications and the impugned endorsements CGC011610294249, CGC011610294106, CGC011610294169, CGC011610294199, dated: 16.11.2016 by the 3rd respondent herein without issuing the SC certificate i.e. "MadasiKuruva" to the petitioners, as per the AP(SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 (G.O.Ms.58 Social Welfare(J), dated: 12.05.1997) as the same is notified as the petitioner caste belong to "MadasiKuruva" Community notified as Category No.31 of Schedule (PART-I), as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities herein forthwith issue the SC caste certificates to petitioners as mentioned as "MadasiKuruva" community as per the AP (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 (G.O.Ms.58 Social Welfare(J), dt12.05.1997), same is notified as the petitioners caste belong to "MadasiKuruva" Community notified as Category No.31 of Schedule (PART-I),

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 57231 OF 2016

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein forthwith issue the SC caste certificate to the petitioners by mentioning as "MadasiKuruva" community as per the AP (SC, ST and

¶25

3

¶26

BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 (G.O.Ms.58 Social Welfare(J), dt12.05.1997) , pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.V S K RAMA RAO

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)

¶31

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

4

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.46453 OF 2016

¶36

O R D E R:

¶37

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the „Endorsement, dated 16.11.2016‟ of the Respondent No. 3 in rejecting the Community Certificate of the Petitioners as „Madasi Kuruva‟ as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the Endorsement as contrary to the provisions of A.P. (SC, ST, and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act, 1993’ ).

¶38

The Petitioners had applied for Community Certificate as „Madasi Kuruva‟ under the provisions of the said Act. The said applications were rejected with an endorsement dated 16.11.2016, “The applicant has not submitted relevant records” and no other reason is forthcoming for rejection of the cases of the Petitioners. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶39

In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that the applications of the Petitioners were rejected on the ground that „there is no Madasi Kuruva caste‟ existing in Kurnool District and more particularly in Nandyal District. It is stated that Petitioners got caste certificate from MRO, Nandyal, without a detailed enquiry at the grass

¶40

5

¶41

roots of originated place i.e., B. Nagireddypalli, H/o.Peruru Village of Rudravaram Mandal.

¶42

Apart from that, it was also submitted that the Petitioners has produced only a manual caste certificate, which was not authenticated. It was further submitted that Kuruva caste people of B. Nagireddypalli had filed applications before the RDO for grant of caste certificate as belonging to Madasi Kuruva caste, but the same was rejected on 25.05.2016, and persons with similar surnames did not belong to the Madasi Kuruva community.

¶43

It was further submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted by Respondent No.4 and it was found that Petitioners belong to the Kuruva caste (B.C. community) and not to the Madasi Kuruva (Schedule Caste community). A copy of the genealogical tree relating to the Petitioners was also appended to the counter affidavit.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader contended that the rejectionendorsement need not be interfered, as the same was passed after due enquiry.

¶45

Heard the respective counsel.

¶46

The Petitioner No.1 had filed caste certificate issued in his favour dated 13.02.1995 by Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandyal. Prior

¶47

6

¶48

thereto, Petitioner No.1 also filed caste certificate issued by the SubCollector on 13.02.1986 declaring Petitioner No.1 belonging to Madasi Kuruva-Scheduled Caste community. A similar caste certificate was also issued in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandyal at an earlier point of time in 1985. Further, the Petitioner No.1 had also filed transfer certificate showing Petitioner No. 1 as belonging to Madasi Kuruva-Scheduled Caste community. The caste certificate issued in favour of Petitioner No.3 on 05.10.2015 was also filed along with writ affidavit. The reason for filing the application is that the authorities were insisting that Petitioner No.1 have to produce a fresh caste certificate from time to time, though the same is not required. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 had to file an integrated caste certificate.

¶49

The only reason given for rejection of the caste certificate of the Petitioners is „relevant documents were not filed‟, but the counter affidavit states that a detailed enquiry was conducted by Respondent No.4 before rejecting the application of the caste certificate. Though, there is variance in the reasons for rejection and the counter affidavit, neither can sustain as rejection is without assigning any reasons and alternatively without furnishing enquiry report to the Petitioners to enable the Petitioners to explain the lacunae in the enquiry report.

¶50

7

¶51

10. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:-

¶52

(i) The impugned endorsement dated 16.11.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.3.

¶53

(ii) The Respondent No.3 shall furnish to the Petitioners a copy of the report of the Tahasildar, Rudravaram (R.C.C./141/2016 dated 25.05.2016) within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

(iii) Upon receipt of the report, the Petitioners shall then file their objections to the same within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of above documents.

¶55

(iv) Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the Petitioners.

¶56

(v) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶58

Petition shall stand closed.

¶59

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶60

Date: 05.02.2026 chs