Dismissed

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Apr 2005WP/7225/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged District Collector proceedings re-categorizing the petitioner's caste. The court held the petition not maintainable as the competent authority had not passed an actual cancellation order; the matter requires compliance with specific procedural regulations before further action.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7225 OF 1995

¶3

Between:

¶4

T.Kurma Rao S/o T. Ramulu, S.T. , aged about 41 years, working Sr. Handy Man (RM-2) H.P.C.L., Visakha Refinery, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and two another

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 7225 OF 1995

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for the respondent.

¶13

2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in Rc.No.11868/87 (TW), dated 12.9.1989, are illegal and arbitrary.

¶14

3. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it appears that the District Collector, Visakhapatnam had addressed the Manager (Personnel), Visakha Refinery, H.P.C.L., stating that as per the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner does not belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ community since such community was not in existence, but belongs to ‘Kapu’ community. It is also stated that according to the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, there is no folk with Surname of ‘Toumrothu’ in Paderu Division. Consequently, a request was made to take action against the petitioner. A further request was also made by the District Collector to the employer to send the original caste certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment, for taking further action in the matter.

¶15

4. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that this Writ Petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that this is only an internal correspondence between the District Collector and the employer of the petitioner, and no action had been initiated and on the contrary only an advice was made to initiate appropriate action, that too after forwarding the original caste certificate produced by the petitioner to the District

¶16

Collector.

¶17

5. From the above, it is obvious that the District Collector, who is the competent authority at the relevant point of time to cancel the caste certificate, did not cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner as such.

¶18

6. Therefore, though there are reasons to find the caste certificate to be defective or fake by the competent authority, still, unless and until the same culminate into an actual order of cancellation by the competent authority, who is none other than the District Collector, subject to further enquiry, as per the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 19.12.1988, no further orders can be passed in the present writ petition. However, if any further proceedings are to be initiated, the procedure prescribed under the Regulation of S.C Act 16 of 1980, which came into force on 16^th May 1997, has to be followed. Since no procedure either under G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 19.12.1988, or under the S.C. Act 16 of 1980, Act, had been followed, no further orders need be passed in this Writ petition.

¶19

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶20

_________________ D.S.R. VARMA, J

¶21

DATE: 22.8.2006 Ka

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.a.S.Educational and Rural Development Society, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puli Sanjeev, Vs The Regional passport officer

B.Laxman, Vs District Collector

V.Rambabu, Vs The District Collector

M. Laxmamma, Vs The Mandal aRevenue Officer

R.A.S. Educational and Rural Development Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Charminar Non-Wovens Limited, Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner