IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16399 of 2002 Between: Smt. Lingampalli Usha Rani, D/o. late L. Venkata Rao R/o. D.No. 177/E, Satyanarayanapuram, Railway Colony, Vijayawada- 11, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, at Machilipatnam. Krishna District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat,. Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 04-07-2000 passed by the District Collector, Krishna District- respondent No.1 and G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 07-08-2002 passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh-respondent No.3, by which the said order of respondent No.1 is confirmed. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on compassionate grounds due to demise of her father L.Venkata Rao, who was a Railway employee. She claimed her social status as ‘Konda Kapu’ community. On a complaint received by the District Revenue authorities from the Divisional Manager, South Central Railway to cancel the community certificate of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, on whose report, respondent No.1 cancelled the social status certificate of the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 04-07-2000. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.3. The said appeal was dismissed on 07-08-2002. This writ petition is filed questioning the said two orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was denied appropriate opportunity of hearing by respondent No.3. He submitted that on 02-07-2002, the Hon’ble Minister, who heard the appeal, adjourned the case to enable the petitioner to produce the community certificate of her sister and that to her surprise, the petitioner later came to know that instead of adjourning the appeal, the same was dismissed by respondent No.3 by the impugned G.O. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, this plea of the petitioner, as advanced by her counsel, has been denied. It is averred that the appeal was dismissed on account of failure of the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in support of her claim. Though the petitioner pleaded that the case was adjourned to enable her to produce the community certificate of her sister, no evidence is placed in support of such a plea. Be that as it may, the remedy of appeal is a statutory right of a person, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority cancelling the community certificate. Therefore, the appellate authority is bound to dispose of the appeal by giving appropriate opportunity to the appellant. No doubt, a perusal of the order of respondent No.3 shows that the appeal was adjourned from time to time and it cannot be said that such an opportunity has been denied to the petitioner. However, even assuming that the petitioner failed to produce the evidence, respondent No.3, being the appellate authority, is bound to give proper reasons in confirming the order of the primary authority. From the reading of the order of respondent No.3, it is evident that the appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to file documentary evidence in support of her social status claim. In the considered opinion of the Court, such a reasoning cannot be sustained because the order in appeal should stand on its own reasons irrespective of whether the petitioner produced fresh evidence before it or not. Therefore, the order of respondent No.3 is set aside and the case is remitted back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of appeal. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 on 31-03-2009, on which date, she shall produce the relevant material, if any, in her possession in support of her claim. The appeal shall be disposed of by respondent No.3, after hearing the petitioner/her counsel, on or before 30-04-2009. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th February, 2009 vrn