Allowed

Nalla Satyanarayana, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Social

Telangana HC6 Jun 2012WP/15842/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the government order cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate. It held that the cancellation proceedings violated Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules by failing to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. The matter was remitted for disposal following the due process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Collector for fresh consideration and disposal with notice to the petitioner within four months.

Nalla Satyanarayana, Vs Government… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWELEVE

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

W.P.No.15842 OF 2012

¶6

Between:Nalla Satyanarayana

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

A n d

¶9

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare (CV-2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶12

W.P.No.15842 OF 2012

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari setting aside G.O.No.14 dated 28.04.2012 of the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner’s appeal and the nd proceedings of the 2 respondent bearing Ref.No.B2/10219/94 dated .10.1998 cancelling the S.T certificate, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for

¶16

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

¶17

3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Konda Kapu caste and his forefathers were residents of Seethapalli village of Rampachodavaram Agency area in East Godavari District and that his grandfather migrated to Kakinada. The petitioner after completion of education secured a job in the office of the Deputy General Manager (DGM) in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant under S.T quota in the year 1988. While so, the DGM, VSP asked the revenue authorities to enquire and verify the social status of the petitioner. The Joint Collector conducted enquiry and passed an order on 02.01.1990 cancelling the caste certificate declaring that the petitioner is a Kapu. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.2632 of 1990 and the same was allowed of 14.07.1994 directing the Joint Collector to conduct a fresh enquiry. According to the petitioner, in spite of the said orders, the petitioner was not given any opportunity and the impugned proceedings were in October, 1998 by the District Collector without following the procedure contemplated under the Act 16/93 i.e., The Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 and the Rules, 1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government. As no orders were passed in the said

¶18

application filed by the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.36762 of 1998 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Government to pass orders in his appeal. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 08.03.2002 rejecting his appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6591 of 2002 and the same was allowed on 18.09.2009 setting aside the orders of the Government and directing that the matter be re-heard. Subsequently, the matter was again considered by the 1st respondent and the impugned G.O.No.14 dated 28.04.2012 was issued rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶19

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 and the Rules, 1997 prescribes the procedure to be followed before orders of cancellation of the caste certificate are issued and the said procedure has not nd been followed by the 2 respondent–District Collector and the

¶20

st 1 respondent did not also advert to the said aspect in the impugned order. The Rules prescribe the procedure as to the manner in which the fraudulent claims regarding the social status to be enquired into. Rule 9 of the Rules contemplates that where the District Collector receives a

¶21

written complaint from any person or has otherwise reason to believe that a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class has obtained a false community certificate, he shall refer the case to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee i.e., Joint Collector of the District formed under Rule 8, to enquire into such cases and send its findings to the District Collector. The Scrutiny Committee has to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 8(d), (1) to (7) and after conducting enquiry and after issuing the notices in the prescribed form and conducting the enquiry as contemplated, the scrutiny committee shall furnish its findings to the District Collector. During the course of the said enquiry, the Scrutiny Committee shall compare the enquiry reports of the Revenue Department furnished by the District Collector, the reports of the Protection of Civil Rights/Vigilance Cell and the reports of the Experts and then finalize its findings whether the community claimed by the person is genuine or otherwise. After receiving the report of the Scrutiny Committee, the District Collector shall then decide whether the certificate holder is genuine or fraudulent and pass appropriate orders cancelling the caste certificate and issue notification accordingly to be published in the District Gazette.

¶22

5. Admittedly, the above said procedure has not been nd followed by the 2 respondent and the matter was not

¶23

referred to the Scrutiny Committee under Rule 18 of the Rules as contemplated under Rule 9. Admittedly, the impugned proceedings were passed by the District Collector in the year 1988 whereas the Rules have by then come

¶24

into force in 1997 as published in A.P. Gazette on 16.05.1997.

¶25

nd The impugned order of the 2 respondent is thus vitiated for

¶26

non-compliance with the procedure mandated by the Statute before ordering the cancellation of the caste certificate earlier issued in favour of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has specifically raised the same in the grounds of appeal preferred before the

¶27

st st 1 respondent, unfortunately the 1 respondent has not applied its mind to the said aspect and did not even care to verify whether the procedure prescribed by the Statute nd has been duly followed or not by the 2 respondent while passing the orders under appeal. Thus, the impugned orders in G.O.No.14 dated 28.04.2012 also gets vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Statute and for non-application of mind as well. Both the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, held liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the nd 2 respondent for fresh consideration and disposal in

¶28

accordance with law duly following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶29

6. Having regard to the fact that the matter is pending since very long time, having been raised for the first time nd in the year 1990, the 2 respondent is directed to conduct the enquiry expeditiously and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶32

th 06 June, 2012 Lrkm

Nalla Satyanarayana, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Social

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalla Satyanarayana, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Social

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a. Subramanian, Vs M/s Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation

M/s. Sitapuram Power Limited, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee

Kalagara Venkata Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Cipl Easy Cabs Drivers Union, Rajiv Gandhi International Vs Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Noothanapati Satyanarayana Vs The Additional Agent to Government and the Project officer

Nuthakki Rajender Prasad Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation