IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 4262 of 2009 Between: Bandam Yella Reddy S/o. Nagaiah R/o. Ambetpalli Village, of Mahadevpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Karimnagar Karimnagar District. 3 The Tahsildar, Mahadevpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mahadevpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5 Bandam Tirupathi Reddy S/o. Chandraiah R/o. Ambetpalli of Mahadevpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring proceedings No. C4/59/2008 dt. 18-2-2009 issued by respondent No.2 and also in not passing any orders in stay petition or in appeal filed by the Petitioner on 27-2-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and without authority of law or pass any other appropriate order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 4262 of 2009 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the second respondent-District Collector, dated 18-02-2009, whereunder community certificate of the petitioner was cancelled in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(1) of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 r/w Rule 9(7) of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 is arbitrary and illegal. At the outset, it is to be noticed that as against the impugned order passed by the second respondent, an alternate remedy of appeal is available before the first respondent. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioner has already preferred such an appeal on 27-02-2009. However, it was alleged that the first respondent failed to consider his appeal and no orders were passed even on his application for stay. In the circumstances, the writ petition was entertained by this Court and by order dated 03-03-2009, the impugned order dated 18-02-2009 passed by the second respondent was suspended. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Since the statutory appeal is admittedly pending before first respondent, it is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Admittedly, the 5th respondent herein is also made a party to the appeal pending before the first respondent and it is open to both the parties to appear before the first respondent and put-forth their respective claims. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal pending on his file against the order of the second respondent dated 18-02-2009 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the impugned order dated 18-02-2009 shall not be given effect to. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 03-07-2009 KLP