Allowed

Lakki Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Jun 2013WP/9996/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the order cancelling his Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate. The court held that the authority failed to serve notice and provide the enquiry report, violating statutory procedure and natural justice. The cancellation order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order cancelling the Caste Certificate dt.19.03.2010 is set aside. Liberty to conduct afresh enquiry with compliance of natural justice.

Lakki Kishore Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA

¶2

RAO

¶3

WP No.9996 of 2010

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging proceedings dt.19.03.2010 in Rc.No.D3/3398/06 of 2^nd respondent cancelling the Caste Certificate issued to petitioner by 5^th respondent that he belongs to Nayakapodu (Scheduled Tribe) vide proceedings D.Dis.No.5891/2006, dt.22.09.2006.

¶6

2. The petitioner attended the counselling for the engineering course conducted by Convenor, EAMCET on 13.09.2006 at Warangal Centre and sought admission in the B.E./B.Tech course under the Schedule Tribe category claiming that he belongs Nayakapodu caste which is a Scheduled Tribe. He attended the enquiry at the office of 3^rd respondent to get a community clearance certificate from the Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. After preliminary enquiry, the 3^rd respondent entertained a doubt as to the petitioner’s claim of being a Scheduled Tribe and he requested the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the 2^nd respondent entrusted the matter to the 4^th respondent for

¶7

enquiry. The 4^th respondent, after enquiry submitted a report to 2nd respondent wherein it resolved that the caste certificate issued to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. In view of the report of the 4^th respondent, the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by 5^th respondent vide D.Dis.No.5891/2006, dt.22.09.2006.

¶8

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the contention of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 have not conducted an enquiry into the validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by following due process of law; that the 2^nd respondent did not give the petitioner a fair chance to prove his case that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community; findings of the 2^nd respondent are perverse and based on no evidence; both respondent Nos.2 and 4 admitted that the petitioner’s father and brother belongs to Scheduled Tribe community but his mother was not a Scheduled Tribe; that such a view cannot be taken; that he is studying 4^th year engineering at Dr.Paul Raj Engineering College and he has secured admission into the said college on the ground that he is a Scheduled Tribe; two of his father’s brothers are also in the Government service – one as Dy. Director of Industries, O/o. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Warangal and another as a

¶9

Government teacher in Warangal District, having secured such employment on the ground that they belong to Scheduled Tribe community; the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 ( for short ‘the Act” ) and Rules made thereunder in 1997 have not been followed; and therefore, the order passed by 2^nd respondent in Rc.No.D3/3398/06 dt.19.03.2010, is liable to be set aside. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent disputing the averments made by petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contending that procedure prescribed under the Act has been followed before passing the impugned order. The 2^nd respondent denied that the petitioner was not given a notice by 4th respondent in the enquiry conducted by it and also denied that the petitioner was not given a fair chance to prove his case by 2nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent also contended that the petitioner cannot rely upon the caste certificate issued to his relative who was working in the O/o The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Warangal, that the issuance of said certificate also requires to be enquired into and that even the certificate given to the petitioner’s brothers certifying that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe category is liable to be cancelled.

¶10

5 . Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki, Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social

¶11

Welfare. They reiterated the contentions referred to above in their respective pleadings.

¶12

6. I have noted the submissions of the parties.

¶13

7. The Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 was enacted by the State Government to consolidate the law relating to issuance of Community certificates relating to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward classes and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It was enacted to curb the evil practice of people getting benefits of education or employment by producing false community certificates and depriving other deserving people of the above categories of such educational and employment opportunities. Section 5 of the Act states :

¶14

“5. Cancellation of the false Community Certificate : (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation :

¶15

Provided that where an enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate issued prior to the commencement of this Act has commenced and is

¶16

pending at such commencement, the record thereof shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue the enquiry and conclude the same under this sub-section.

¶17

(2) The powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Government.”

¶18

Rule 5(e) of the Rules framed under the Act states:

¶19

“5.(e) The Competent Authority should give reasonable opportunity to the applicant/parent/guardian to produce evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by the beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality to which the applicant/parent/guardian belongs. If any person or association oppose such a claim, opportunity to produce the evidence in person before the Competent Authority may be given to him or her. After giving such an opportunity to that person or association the Competent Authority may make such enquiry as it deems expedient and consider claims of the applicant/guardian/parent vis-à-vis the objections raised by his/her/their opponent.”

¶20

8. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was issued a caste certificate by the 5^th respondent in his proceedings vide D.Dis.No.5891/2006, dt.22.09.2006, stating that he belongs to Nayakapodu (ST) Caste. When the petitioner sought admission in engineering course after appearing in the EAMCET examination in the year 2006, a doubt was entertained as to whether he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and the matter was referred to the 2^nd respondent to conduct an enquiry. The 2^nd respondent then referred the matter to the 4^th

¶21

respondent. The 4^th respondent issued notice to the petitioner and conducted an enquiry and came to the conclusion that the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by 5^th respondent on 22.09.2006 is liable to be cancelled. The 2^nd respondent relied upon the report of the 4^th respondent and cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.

¶22

9. A reading of the impugned order does not indicate the petitioner was given any notice by the 2^nd respondent as is mandated by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and Rule 5(e) of the rules framed under the Act. Giving of notice to the petitioner by the 4^th respondent is of no avail because the Act casts a duty on the 2^nd respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove that he belongs to the Scheduled tribe community since the 2^nd respondent is the authority conferred with the jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate. It is also not disputed that the report of the 4^th respondent is also not furnished to the petitioner to enable him to know its contents. Therefore, there has been a clear violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the principles of natural justice by 2^nd respondent while passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶23

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the

¶24

order dt.19.03.2010 in Rc.No.D3/3398/06 of the 2^nd respondent cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the 5^th respondent vide D.Dis.No.5891/2006, dt.22.09.2006, is set aside. Liberty is given to the 2^nd respondent to conduct enquiry afresh into the issue whether the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Such an enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶25

11. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.

¶26

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶27

Date: 14-06-2013 Ndr/-

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Writ Petition No.9996 of 2010

¶29

Ndr/*

¶30

-06-2013

Lakki Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakki Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kadali Satya Murthy S/o Sreeramulu Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Mokhasa Kalavapudi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour

Annem Anjireddy, Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Penta Venkata Rao, Vs Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society

Mohammad Akbal Vs Chinta Venkata Reddy

Sri Shishir Kumar, Vs Smt. Roopa Devi