Disposed

Bojja Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2024WP/39705/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the validity of an SC certificate held by the 4th respondent, a Sarpanch candidate from the Dasari community. The Court directed the District Level Scrutiny Committee and Revenue Divisional Officers to verify the certificate's genuineness and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to approach the District Level Scrutiny Committee and Revenue Divisional Officers to examine the genuineness of the caste certificate within a period of four weeks from rec

Bojja Anjaiah, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 3970 5 0F 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

B^ojjaanjaiah, S/o Gopaiah, lggg +g years Occ Sociat worker, R/o H.No.1_ l24,Pastataviilage,Tungati,rrty"tt/inOri-f .laf go=,i"r'JtJii"t.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanoana Bep. Oy its principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste Devetopment corpoiariori, se[reijriai nviJiSolo]""''

¶12

2 The Collector & Didkict Magistrate, Nalgonda district, Natgonda district.

¶13

3 The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda district, Nalgonda

¶14

4 Anaqandula Renuka. S/o.. ffnsg2ndula Sreenivas, Rl/o pastala village, Tungaturty Mandat, Nllgonda distr]ct^{- - -}

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not taking action on the representation dated 11.7.2014 submitted by me for taking action against the respondent No.4 herein for producing bogus SC Horeya Dasari certificate and enjoying the benefits thereof, though she berongs to Dasari caste, which is incruded in B.c.-A (seriar No.6) as iilegar, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra pradesh (sc, sr, BC) Reguration of rssue of community certificates Act, 1gg3 and consequenfly direct the respondents to take necessary action on my representation dated 11.7.2014 in regard to the bogus certificate produced by the 4th respondent, in terms of Andhra pradesh (sc, sr and BC) Regulation of lssue of Community Certificates Act,1993.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF^{2O14(WPMP. NO :49777OF 2014)}

¶18

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} directtherespondentstotakenecessaryactionofthepetitionerrepresentation dated 1 1-7-2O14^{in regardto the bogus certificateproducedby the 4th} respondent, in terms^{of Andhra Pradesh (SC,ST&BC) Regulation of lssue of} Community Certificates^{Act, 1993,pending disposal of the writ petition'}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI T.V.RAMESH} Counsel for^{the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE /} GP FOR EDUCATION

¶20

Counset for the^{Respondent No.4: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

HON,BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA} w ITPETI ON o.39 705 F20L4

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Mr.^{T.v. Ramesh,learned counsel for the} Pleader for^Social petitioner, learned^Government Welfare,^{learned Government Pleader for Education'} appearing^{on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 3 andMr'} Rapolu^{Bhaskar,learned counsel for respondentNo'4'}

¶25

The^{petitioner approached the Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶26

"... to issue a Writ^{of Mandamus or any other} appropriate^{writ order or direction declaring the} inaction on^{the part of the respondentsin not taking} action on^{the representationdated t-7-2014} submitted^{by the petitionerfor taking action against} the respondent^{No.4 hereinfor producing bogus SC} Holeya Dasari^{Certificate and enjoyingthe benefits} thereof,^{though she belongs to Dasari caste whichis} included^{in B.C.-A (SerlalNo' 6) as illegal'arbitrary} and contrary^{to the provisions of AndhraPradesh} (SC, ST, BC)^{Regulation of issue of Community} Certificates^{Act, 1993 and consequentlydirectthe} respondents^{totake necessary action on the} petitioner representation^{dated ll.7-2OL4 in regard}

¶27

¶28

wP t9705 2014

¶29

to the bogus certificate produced by the 4th respondent in terms of Andh fa^{Pradesh (SC, ST and} BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and pass ..."

¶30

Brief case of the petitioner is ,that 4th respondent contested for the post of Sarpanch of pastala Gram Panchayat, which is reserved for women SC community but the 4th respondent produced bogus SC Community certiFicate though she belongs to B.C (Dasari) Community and lvon the election. The petitioner made representation on 11.07.2014 to A.P. State Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and National commission for Scheduled Castes requesting the respondents to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent, but the respondent Nos.2l and 3 have not taken any action. Hence the writ petition.

¶31

Counter affidavit has been fi ed bv resD ndent

¶32

No.2 elvino on T] ra Nos.S nd 6 of the courter affidavit

¶33

which reads as under:

¶34

"5) Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) to verify the caste status and to take further action in the

tr,'

wP 19705 2014

matter. The DLSC^{conducted themeeting on} 14.10.2015 duly^{issuing notices to both the parties'On} the date of meeting^{the petitionerSmt. Alagandula} Renuka w/o Srinivas^{and complainantSri BojjaAnjaiah} also attended the^{meeting. Duringthe enquiry she} orally stated that^{she belongs to "HoliyaDasari(SC)"} community and that^{all her relativeshave taken "Holiya} Dasari^{(SC)" caste certificatefrom differentplaces and} requested to^{give time for producing the copies of the} certificates. Later she^{submittedthe copies of the} certificates of^{her relatives namelyas stated below'}

¶39

sl. No.	Name and Address	CasteCertificate^No. and date	Revenue Division &Mandal
1 2	Yandlapally Suresh, S/o.Venkataiah,^R/o. patarlapahad(V) of Atmakur^(M)of^Nalgonda District. Y.Narsingh,^S/o. Satyanarayana, Balanagar^(M)of District. Y. Vo. R.R.	cGC021400345233, dated 10.10.2014 A/5084/2003,^dated 16.01.2004	R.D.o.,Suryapet & Tahasildar, Atmakur^(M) R.D.O.Chevella & Tahasildar, Balanagar^of R.R.District.
	Y. Saritha, Sudhakar, Patharlapahad Dlo. R/o. (v) Athmakur S Mandal	cGCOt4lL7L62, dated 28.02.2013	R.D.O., SuryaPet &Tahasildar, Atmakur^(M)
4	Dhyanamaina^Sriramulu, S/o.D.Mukundam,^R/o. Saroor Nagar^{(v) &(M),} ofR.R.District.	cND021501542060, 04.o7.2075	R.D.O.,Saroor Nagar & Tahasildar SarrorNagar^of R.R.District.

¶40

To know the^{genuineness of the above caste} certificate produced by her, the certificates^were

-,1

wP 39705 20'i;

referred to the concerned Revenue Divisional^Officers tor submitting report on 22.t2.20L5 which is still awaited. Further submit that the Revenue Divisional Officers are being reminded on 04.03.2015^for submission of report and the Committee meeting^will again be conducted duly issuing notices to all concern, after obtaining the^genuineness or other reports^from the concerned Revenue divisional Officers".

¶46

Taking into consideration the specific averments made at para Nos. 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 (referred to and extracted above), the District Level Scrutiny Committee shall examine the subject issue duly calling for the report from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order by issuing notices to all concerned and pass appropriate orders as sought for by the petitioner on the petitioner's representation dated 1,L.O7.2OL4 submitted to the 2nd respondent pursuant to enquiry in response to bogus certificate against the 4th respondent.

¶47

¶48

sN. t wP 19705 2014

¶49

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

However, no order as to costs.

¶51

MiscellaneoUs petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶52

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/. MOHD.SANAULLAH ANS ASSISTANT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION O ICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Scheduled^{Caste Development Corporation,} Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of^Telangana.

¶58

The Collector & District t/agistrate,^{Nalgonda district, Nalgonda district.}

¶59

The District Panchayat Officer,^{Nalgonda district, Nalgonda}

¶60

One CC to SRI T.V.RAMESH,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

TWo CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL^{WELFARE,High Courtfor the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010612024

ORDER

WP.No.39705 of 2014

-{'-
la
,( o-
.?
ooJ 2i JUlt zul i
-t tD ,
Z[:.SpAr{:h

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶73

WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

eB. ,,2<br>

Bojja Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bojja Anjaiah, v. The State of Telangana

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

Nallabothula Lingaswami Vs State of Telangana

Dasari Shankariah Vs State of Telangana

Nalabothola Venkatamma Vs State of Telangana

V. Narsimha Chary, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Smt. Rayudu Sravani Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Chada Laxmi Narasimha Reddy Vs The Union of India