IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26827 of 2007 Between: Neelapu Venkata Kumari D/o.Late Appanna R/o.D.No.18/369,Peda Yerukapadu Gudiwada, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department , secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District Machilipatnam 3 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue officer, Gudiwada Krishna District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.ms.No.79 dated 21.9.2007 upholding the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 27.2.2007 whereby canceling the petitioners caste certificate issued by the 3rd respondent as Kondareddy 9ST), as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 21.9.2007 and 27.2.2.007 direct the respondents to recognize the caste of the petitioner as kondareddy (ST) in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No. 26827 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No. 79 dated 29.1.2007 issued by 1st respondent in upholding the orders of 2nd respondent dated 27.2.2007 and canceling the petitioner’s caste certificate issued by 3rd respondent (Kondareddy- ST) as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, her grandfather hails from Badrachalam Agency area and migrated to Gudivada about 70 years back for eking out his livelihood. The petitioner was born on 25.5.1976 at Gudivada. According to the petitioner, they belong to Kondareddy(ST) Community, which is a Schedule Tribe Community. Her father expired on 30.12.1999 and her mother predeceased her father at Gudivada. She studied up to B.Sc. at Gudivada with ST caste certificate issued by the concerned revenue authorities. All the educational records reveal that she belongs to ST community. Her elder sister R. Ramanamma and her husband Bheemanna and their daughters and their children are also residing at Gudivada and they are claiming Schedule Tribe (Kondareddy). According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has been creating hurdles in granting petitioner required caste certificate i.e. Kondareddy (ST). Therefore, petitioner had to file W.P.No. 4898 of 1994 before this Court and this Court and obtained interim directions and accordingly the 3rd respondent, after conducting enquiry and after receiving migration certificate of her father, issued the required caste certificate on 21.10.1995, showing that petitioner belongs to Kondareddy (ST) community, on the basis of which petitioner, secured a job in the Revenue Department. The earlier W.P.No. 4898 of 1994, filed by the petitioner, was disposed of on 23.9.1994 directing petitioner to approach the competent authority –District Level Committee and further directing the competent authority to consider her case in accordance with law. While that being so, 2nd respondent directed petitioner to produce the latest caste certificate before the Joint Collector. Petitioner filed an application on 1.3.2005 before the 3rd respondent seeking issuance of caste certificate as Kondareddy (ST) and the same was rejected with an endorsement that the petitioner has to submit an application in the prescribed Form No.1 under Rule 5 of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act 16 of 1993 with documentary evidence. In the process, petitioner filed another application on 21.5.2005 which was also returned for want of migration certificate. Then the petitioner had to file an application before the 2nd respondent, who in turn directed the 3rd respondent to enquire into the matter and take necessary action. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare Department issued guidelines in Rc.No.950/2005/TRI/VC-7 dated 18.6.2005 through the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare with regard to verification of authenticity of Schedule Tribe certificates obtained by the concerned claimants. The Principal Secretary to Government, APSW (CV 2) also issued a Memo No.2500 on 31.3.2005 clarifying the position and directing the competent authority in regard to issuance of caste certificates stating that “once ST certificate is issued to a person, born after the date of notification of particular presidential order passed, on the permanent abode of his parents, then his children, grandchildren and their successive generations will also continue to be entitled to claim the status of ST in the State of A.P”. However, the 2nd respondent, without furnishing proper reasons, rejected the case of the petitioner on 21.2.2007. The same was challenged before the 1st respondent and interim orders were sought, pending appeal. Since no orders were passed on the interim application, the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings Rc.No.A7/1489/07 dated 19.4.2007 terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. The 1st respondent did not consider her case appropriately basing on the present legal position and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner without giving proper opportunity. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Collector through his proceedings dated 27.2.2007 cancelled the caste certificate stating that he has referred the case to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Collector-cum-Chairman of the District Level Scrutiny Committee has issued notice in Form-IV to the petitioner to attend for enquiry but she did not turn up for enquiry in spite of several notices; that the District Level Scrutiny Committee has issued final notice directing the petitioner to appear before the District Level Scrutiny Committee on 9.1.2007, on which date she appeared but failed to produce the migration certificate and the required documents to prove her case. According to the petitioner, she appeared before the scrutiny committee on 9.1.2007 and requested time to get the migration certificate and other relevant documents from Bhadrachalam, from where her grandfather migrated and to produce the same, stating that in spite of her best efforts she could not get the migration certificate due to non- cooperation of the revenue officials at Bhadrachalam. The committee, instead of granting time and giving a go-bye to the principles of natural justice and without furnishing reasons, closed the enquiry and reported the matter to the District Collector on the same day i.e. 9.1.2007. However, the petitioner, after strenuous efforts, obtained migration certificate on 17.4.2007 and though the same was produced before the 1st respondent, it was not considered. It is the contention of the petitioner that the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee were not furnished to the petitioner. Rule 8 of A.P. (SC., ST., & BC) issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 deals with Scrutiny Committee of District Level consisting of the Chairman and six members. Rule 9 of the said Rules deals with the procedure to be followed by the District Level Scrutiny Committee for conducting enquiry. The District Level Committee, without conducting enquiry in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the Rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice, submitted a report to the District Collector and the District Collector cancelled the caste certificate by accepting the said report. The 1st respondent also failed to consider the same and rejected the revision. Due to lack of proper opportunity, the petitioner could not establish her case and according to the petitioner, she is ready to produce the relevant documentary evidence, if an opportunity is given to her and that the migration certificate dated 17.4.2007 shows that her ancestors were migrated from Bhadrachalam Tribal area. The order passed by the District Collector on the basis of the report of the District Level Scrunity Committee is arbitrary and illegal. The District Level Committee has hastily submitted report on 9.1.2007 without following the due process of law. The 1st respondent did not consider this aspect at all. Further, the reasons given in the impugned order dated 29.1.2007 are wholly arbitrary, unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter that the A.P. (SC., ST., & BC) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules 1997 prescribe procedure for making an application and for issuance of social status certificate. Form-I of Act No.16/03 is prescribed with asmany as 11 columns seeking required data for issuance of caste certificate. After following the said process, the 3rd respondent rejected the application and then the writ petitioner made another application on 21.2.2005. The permanent residence of the parents of the petitioner is the first criterion to consider issuance of social status certificate and the petitioner failed to prove the same. In spite of several notices asking the petitioner to attend for the enquiry, she failed to do so. Therefore, the District Level Screening Committee has issued final notice directing her to appear before the District Level Scrutiny Committee on 9.1.2007. Even on that day, the petitioner failed to produce the migration certificate and required documents to prove her caste. On consideration of the dates, it is noticed that sufficient time has been granted to the petitioner for production of necessary documents. Further, as per Section 6 of the Act 16/1993, the burden of proof that she belongs to such caste, tribe or class, shall be on the claimant. It is further stated in the counter that in spite of granting sufficient opportunity, petitioner failed to establish her case and migration certificates produced by her vide Rc.No.A4/245/1970 dated 18.3.1970 and Rc.No.A4/245/1970 dated 17.4.2007 speak volumes about their genuineness. The first certificate i.e. the caste certificate (migrated) has got reference of Tribal Research Institute Verification Cell dated 20.6.1970, whereas the Certificate is said to have been issued on 18.3.1970. The 2nd certificate dated 17.4.1970 in Rc.No.A4/245/1970 also has got the same reference. Interestingly, the Tribal Research Institute Verification Cell was not established by 1970. It is also relevant to note that in the signature column of the concerned official, usually the designation of the officer will be written, whereas in both the certificates it is typed as “Office of Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam”. Apart from this, the petitioner failed to furnish the required information, documents and other evidence and thus did not establish her caste. The department goes by documents available in the office, produced by the claimants, and the statutory Rules prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that no proper opportunity was given is without any basis and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record. It is a fact that before the migration certificate could be submitted by the petitioner from the concerned authorities, the District Level Scrutiny Committee had submitted its report on 9.1.2007. In a case of this nature where serious civil consequences are involved, the respondents ought to have given some more time to the petitioner for production of migration certificate. On 9.1.2007 the petitioner appeared and sought for time, but that was not granted stating that in spite of several adjournments she could not produce evidence in support of her case. Thus, the report was submitted on the very same day to the District Collector. Further, in the counter filed by the respondents, the allegation that the District Level Scrutiny Committee’s report was not furnished to the petitioner is not denied. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner has also filed a copy of the migration certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam dated 17.4.2007, showing that the father and grandfather of the petitioner migrated from Bhadrachalam Agency area. It is the contention of the petitioner that her cousins those who are settled in Gudivada are also issued with caste certificates as Kondareddy (Schedule Tribe). In the rejection order passed by the District Collector or the Government, it does not reveal for what exactly the enquiry conducted, who were the persons examined in the enquiry, whether the petitioner was given any notice or not etc. except saying that there was some discrepancy in the caste certificate and the migration certificate obtained by her. Further, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended on the basis of some evidence that the surname “Neelapu” is also available in the Tribes of Bhadrachalam Agency area and other parts of the State. If the case of the petitioner is not a genuine one, she could not have fought the battle for such a long time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that since she lost roots in Bhadrachalam Agency area, she was not able to produce the certificate immediately and, therefore, the respondents could have given some more time and conducted a detailed enquiry by examining the witnesses in the presence of the petitioner and then they could have decided the matter finally. This has not taken place. Now the petitioner asserts that she is ready to produce any evidence, as required under the law. It must also be borne in mind that the petitioner served as an employee of the Revenue Department in Guntur District for more than seven years and she lost her employment in view of the cancellation of the caste certificate held by her. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not considered the matter as required under the law, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of caste certificate by the District Collector, as affirmed by the Government, is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from conducting an enquiry as required under the law with regard to the genuineness of the Certificate obtained by the petitioner. If any such enquiry is contemplated, the same shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 17-03-2009. MVB.