THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1676 of 2003 Dated:20.01.2011 Between: Mirthivada Brahmananda Reddy. ...Petitioner And The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1676 of 2003 ORDER: The first respondent in purported exercise of power under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act), and Rule 9(7) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (the Rules), cancelled the caste certificate issued by the revenue authorities to Ms.Mirthiwada Varalakshmi (hereafter referred to as MV), daughter of Peddabbai. While doing so, by proceedings Ref.C5/1945/2000, dated 25.12.2002, the District Collector also cancelled the caste certificates issued by the revenue authorities on various occasions to the family members of MV. The petitioner who is her junior paternal uncle filed the instant writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent insofar as the same purports to cancel the caste certificate issued to him. To give some more facts, MV applied for the dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) under Scheduled Tribe (ST) quota. She produced the caste certificate before HPCL officials. The same was referred to the first respondent for confirmation, who after it, verified and sent a report to HPCL that she belongs to Konda Reddi community. On a complaint given by some of the employees Association HPCL again referred the matter to the first respondent for clarification about her caste status. This time the first respondent referred the matter to the third respondent for detailed enquiry. Yet again HPCL authorities approached the Joint Collector. Therefore, the first respondent referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) constituted as per Rule 7 of the Rules. Notice in Form VI was issued to MV. She appeared before DLSC. The information was also sought from the other revenue authorities and Tribal Welfare Research Institute. After conducting enquiry DLSC submitted report/resolution dated 18.02.2002 recommending to the first respondent to declare the caste of MV and her family members as Reddlu (OC) but not Konda Reddi (ST) besides recommending to cancel their Konda Reddi caste certificates. The first respondent again issued a notice dated 27.11.2002 to MV directing her to attend before the District Collector. She was supplied the copy of the report of the DLSC. She did not attend subsequently on any of the days the case was posted. Therefore, the first respondent issued the impugned order. The counter affidavit is filed by the District Collector, inter alia, stating that the birth & death particulars and land documents show that Mirthiwada people belong to Reddlu but not Konda Reddi community and that the local enquiry revealed that they belong to Reddlu but not Konda Reddies. Adverting to the plea of the petitioner regarding denial of the opportunity, the counter affidavit took the stand that ample opportunity was provided to MV and her family members to prove their tribal status but they have not availed the opportunity to support their Konda Reddi status. The Counsel for the petitioner made submissions in relation to various aspects of enquiry pointing out the perceived lacunae in the enquiry. He would urge that the notice contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules and the notice after the report of the DLSC were issued to MV and not to the petitioner or his family members, and therefore, the impugned order suffers from grave error on the face of the record. The Government Pleader for Social Welfare refutes this. Section 5 of the Act enables the District Collector to cancel the community certificate, “after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation”. This also reflected in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, which requires the scrutiny committee to issue notice to the person in Form VI. The counter affidavit nowhere avers that any such notice was issued to the petitioner or his family members. The impugned order also refers to the notice in Form VI issued to MV and the notice and enquiry conducted in relation to MV only. No such effort was ever made by the District Collector or DLSC with regard to the petitioner. Whether it is competent for the District Collector to cancel the community certificate/certificates issued to the members of the entire clan based on the enquiry into genuineness of the certificate issued to one member is a moot question. The law requires the person to be given an opportunity before the community certificate is cancelled. In this case no such opportunity was given to the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The impugned proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari District, insofar as the same purports to declare the petitioner as belonging to Reddlu and insofar as it cancels the Konda Reddi (ST) caste certificate of the petitioner is non est in the eye of law. This does not in any manner affect the validity of the impugned order canceling the caste certificate of Ms.Mirthiwada Varalakshmi. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.01.2011 vs