Dismissed

B. Sudarsana Rao v. The Collector

Telangana HC27 Jun 2013WP/14020/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of an enquiry notice issued under Section 5 of the Community Certificates Act. The Court held that a lower-ranking Revenue Officer lacked competence to issue the certificate, justifying the State's enquiry despite the petitioner's claim of its subsistence. (61 words)

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications dismissed; No costs awarded.

B. Sudarsana Rao Vs The Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14020 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings reference No.C5(M) 558/2005 dt.21.06.2005 issued by 2^nd respondent asking the petitioner to give evidence and submit records regarding his caste status.

¶5

2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Valmiki Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. Initially he was issued a certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District on 03.02.1992 certifying that he belongs to the said Scheduled Tribe Community. He was later selected on 06.03.2000 by the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram Mandal basing on the above certificate for the post of Physical Education Teacher in Tribal Welfare Ashram Upper P r i m a r y School, Kakawada Village, Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Later the petitioner again applied for a fresh caste certificate to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District but he returned it by order dt.09.10.2000 saying that the same has to be submitted before the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent after enquiry, issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 27.11.2004.

¶6

3. In the mean time, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 07.06.2004 by 3^rd respondent. He filed O.A.No.4281 of 2004 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad challenging the order of termination. The said O.A was allowed on 16.02.2005 and he was directed to be reinstated.

¶7

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the

¶8

4^th respondent issued a fresh caste certificate on 27.11.2004, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice dt.21.06.2005 asking the petitioner to attend his office on 28.06.2005 for enquiry regarding caste of the petitioner on 30.05.2005; that this was done on a complaint received by his office on 26.05.2005; that

¶9

1^st respondent did not mention the person from whom the complaint was received; and that this is done to frustrate the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and was issued with a malafide intention. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to direct him to attend the enquiry before 2^nd respondent committee once again, to prove that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community when the certificate dt.27.11.2004 issued by the 4^th respondent is still subsisting.

¶10

5. Heard Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

¶11

6. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶12

7. The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) was enacted by the State Legislature to regulate the issue of Community Certificates relating to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in order to curb use of false Community Certificates for the purpose of employment and educational opportunities.

¶13

8. Section 3 of the Act enables a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes to apply for a community certificate to the competent authority in order to claim the benefit of any reservation provided to such castes, tribes or

¶14

classes. Section 4 of the Act states that the Competent Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 3, satisfy itself about the genuineness or otherwise of the claim made therein and thereafter issue a community certificate within such period and in such form as may be prescribed or reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. It also states that a certificate in regard to community issued by any person, Officer of authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid.

¶15

9. Vide G.O.Ms.No.58 Social Welfare (J) Department dt.12.05.1997, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes - Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules were framed. Under Rule 2(c) “Competent Authority” is defined as an authority specified under column (2) of Annexure-I appended to the rules, for issue of certificates to the communities specified in column(1) within the territorial jurisdiction as specified in column(3). In respect of persons belonging to Valmiki Community, only Revenue Officers not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer/ Special Collector or Assistant Collector in the State are competent to issue the community certificate.

¶16

10. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 4^th respondent had issued a certificate on 27.11.2004 and therefore, no enquiry can be done into his caste status cannot be accepted because the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maredumilli Mandal, East Godavari District (4^th respondent), being subordinate in rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, is not competent to issue such a community certificate.

¶17

11. Section 5 of the Act enables a District Collector suo motu or on a written complaint by any person that a person not belonging to

¶18

any of the Scheduled Tribes or Backward Class has obtained a false community certificates that he belongs to such caste or tribe or class, to call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he forms an opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification cancel it after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation. Therefore, since a complaint was received by the office of Joint Collector-cumChairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Kakinada, East Godavari District (2^nd respondent) that the petitioner has fraudulently obtained a community certificate stating that he belongs to the Valmiki (S.T) Community, he is entitled to go into the said issue in view of the power conferred on him under Section 5 of the Act. In exercise of said power, he had issued the impugned notice dt.21.06.2005 to the petitioner to submit the records, so that enquiry into the Community status of the petitioner can be gone into.

¶19

12. I do not find any error or infirmity in the issuance of said notice to the petitioner by 2^nd respondent as he is entitled to conduct such an enquiry under Section 5 of the Act.

¶20

13. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications filed in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶21

________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶22

27^th June 2013

¶23

scs

B. Sudarsana Rao v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sudarsana Rao v. The Collector

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

K.Uma Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

K. Uma Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

K. Pentaiah Vs The Station House Officer, Hayath Nagar Police Station

Suresh Chandra Panigrahi Vs Harichandra Panigrahi

Virothi Tirupati Rao Vs Kota Venu