IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.6591 of 2002 Between: Nalla Satyanarayana s/o. Subba Rao, Hindu, Age 35 yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And 1. Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare (CV-2) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada-1. 3. The Deputy General Manager (CMM), Visakhapatnam Steel Project, Project Office Complex, Visakhapatnam. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri A. Ravinder Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6591 of 2002 ORDER:- The petitioner has joined in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on the strength of a community certificate, which certified him as belonging to Kondakapu (S.T.) caste. On the ground that the said certificate was a bogus one, the same was cancelled by the Joint Collector, East Godavari District on 02.01.1990. The said order was set aside by this Court in WP.No.2632 of 1990 filed by the petitioner, he was permitted to file explanation before the Joint Collector and liberty was given to the Joint Collector to consider the explanation and pass an appropriate order. By the proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari, respondent No.2, issued in October 1998, the petitioner’s community certificate was again cancelled. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.1. Pending appeal, respondent No.1 granted stay of the order of respondent No.2 and by the impugned proceedings, he dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by respondent No.1. She submitted that the hearing of the case has taken place on 31.08.2001 and after arguing the case for sometime, the petitioner’s counsel requested for adjournment for producing some additional material and that accordingly the case was adjourned to 28.11.2001. The learned counsel further submitted that due to the ill-health of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner and his counsel could not appear on 28.11.2001 and on 30.11.2001, a memo was filed to fix another date for hearing. She further submitted that without adjourning the case further, respondent No.1, having kept the case pending for nearly ten (10) months, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming the order of respondent No.2. On the direction of this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare produced the record pertaining to the hearing of the case by respondent No.1. In the note file it is recorded as under: “This case was taken up for hearing on 12.06.2001, but hearing could not take place and posted on 13.07.2001, again posted on 31.08.2001. The counsel for the petitioner has appeared and made his argument and requested for adjournment. He was given last chance and posted on 28.11.2001, but the petitioner or his counsel not appeared and sent written Memo dated 30.11.2001 stating that they could not attend for the hearing due to ill-health of the father of the petitioner and personal inconvenience of the counsel and requested to fix any other date for hearing. The appellant is not in a position to produce any proof to support his claims even though ample time given to him and repeatedly requesting for adjournment.” The facts borne out by the record and referred above clearly show that hearing has taken place on 31.08.2001 and on 28.11.2001, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. However, within two days thereafter, a memo was filed by the petitioner to fix another date for hearing which was received by respondent No.1. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 observed that the appeal was adjourned on several occasions for personal hearing, but the fact appears to be otherwise. Obviously, on two occasions, namely; 12.06.2001 and 13.07.2001, hearing has not taken place and the petitioner evidently was not responsible for the same. The only date on which the petitioner’s case went un-represented was 28.11.2001. Having received the memo within two days of the last posting of the case, respondent No.1 has not passed any order thereon and waited for nearly ten months before passing the impugned order. In my considered view, respondent No.1, who waited for substantially long period after the last hearing on 28.11.2001, before passing the impugned order, ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioner, in the light of the plea of the petitioner that due to the ill-health of his father he could not be present on 28.11.2001. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to re-hear the case and pass an appropriate order afresh. Since the dispute is pending for nearly two decades, the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment before respondent No.1. If the petitioner is not present on the date of hearing fixed by respondent No.1, it shall be free to decide the case on the basis of the available record. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to the petitioner and hearing him. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.09.2009 ES