IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13620 of 2008 Between: G. Rama Rao s/o. Late Yeruka Naidu R/o. D.No. 48-18-13, Near Ramatalkies, T.B.Hospital Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam Distirct at Visakhapatnam. 2 The Public Infromation Officer & DRO, Visakhapatnam. .....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 order or direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents here in not furnishing the documents referred in the impugned notice vide proceedings (M) Rc.No. 322/98/C5, dated 30.5.2008 in spite of request made by the petitioner vide representation dated 8-6-2008 and further action of the 1st respondent in proceeding to finalize the proceedings under the S.C., S.T., Issuance of community Certificate Act in pursuance of the impugned notice is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principles of natural justice and further action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice carrying upon the reports of enquiry conducted behind back of the petitioner and by also relying upon the district Level Scrutiny Committee report which was furnished as direct by the director, TCR & TI as highly illegal, and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by G.Rama Rao with a prayer to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not furnishing the documents referred to in the show cause notice as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 8.6.2008 to the first respondent to provide him copies of the documents which have been referred to in the show cause notice, but so far they have not made available to the petitioner. I have gone through the show cause notice dated 30.05.2008 issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam and also the representation of the petitioner dated 8.6.2008. In the representation, the petitioner requested the authorities to furnish the copies of the documents referred to in the show cause notice. Obviously, the petitioner is required to be furnish the copies of documents referred to in the show cause notice so as to enable him to give an effective explanation. Denial of furnishing copies of documents referred to in the show cause notice amounts depriving the petitioner to an effective explanation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to furnishing copies of the documents referred in the show cause notice so as to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation. _________ 27-06-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam Distirct at Visakhapatnam. 2 The Public Infromation Officer & DRO, Visakhapatnam. 3.2CD copies