IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10211 of 2001 Between: M.Sanna Mallappa S/o. Mallappa R/o. Thimmapuram Village, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kambadur Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Rc.MC3/736/2000 dated 3.5.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisidiction and violation of principle of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.10211 of 2001 ORDER: The question involved in this writ petition is as to the validity of the order of the 1st respondent-District Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur, impugned herein, wherein it was concluded that the petitioner had fraudulently admitted his son and daughter to Dr.B.R.A.C.S.W. Junior College for Girls, Kurugunta and Principal A.P.S.W.R. Junior College for Boys, Kanekal, respectively, and the entire amount is liable to be recovered from him and credited to the Government. The said order also found that criminal action is liable to be taken against the petitioner for committing fraud and for obtaining false income certificate for getting his son and daughter admitted in the residential colleges as above mentioned. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as has been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner belongs to the schedule caste community and was working as Teacher at Mandal Praja Parishad Elementary School, Timmapuram village, Kambadur Mandal. 4. It is contended that the residential schools for Boys and Girls at Kurugunta and Kanekal, respectively, were catering to the needs of several schedule caste students, and petitioner’s daughter and son were admitted in the respective institutions. So far as the daughter is concerned, she has studied in the A.P.Social Welfare School, Timmapuram for the year 1994-95 and in the above mentioned Government Junior College for Girls, during the year 1996- 97. Similarly, the son of the petitioner has studied in the residential Junior College, Kanekal, for one year. 5. The primary allegation against the petitioner is that he got his children admitted into the respective institutions on the basis of income certificate. The petitioner has submitted an explanation and reiterates the same that his children were admitted in the respective institutions by one E. Mallesu and Nagabhushanam along with their children and at that time, it is possible that they have given a wrong income certificate. The petitioner, however, denies that there is any fraud, especially, in view of the fact that his children have studied hardly for one or two academic years and even otherwise the children are entitled and eligible to study in the said institutions. 6. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Anantapur, conducted an enquiry on the said allegation made against the petitioner and considered the submissions of the petitioner as well as that of his counsel who appeared in the said enquiry. The primary authority i.e. 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, gave a report against the petitioner, where upon, further enquiry was conducted by the District Collector. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submissions; firstly, that the impugned order itself shows that after the petitioner and his counsel were heard in the matter, the District Collector has called for further information from the Principal of the Junior College for the Boys under his reference dated 10-08-2000 (reference 6 in the impugned order) and also issued notices to certain other persons and to the Mandal Revenue Officer (reference 7 and 8 in the impugned order) and on the basis of the said information, and material, subsequently received by the Collector, after hearing was over, the impugned order is passed. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the exfacie the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice as the Collector has relied upon the materials which are collected behind the back of the petitioner and with regard to said record, there was no opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner’s children, who studied in the said school, is not in dispute nor it is the case of the Government that the petitioner is very affluent and his children were not eligible to study in the said residential schools. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner was working as a teacher, his income also was within the range of eligibility and it is not as if that serious prejudice is caused to anybody or that there is any grave fraud or falsity as is sought to be projected by the respondents. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the charge being highly trivial and keeping in view of the fact that the children have studied hardly for one or two academic years, the impugned order directing the recovery of the amount from the petitioner as well as further directing criminal prosecution against the petitioner etc., is highly unwarranted. 9. The 1st respondent-District Collector has filed a counter affidavit and to the extent of the allegation of the petitioner that conducting enquiry, by the Collector, was behind the back of the petition, is not denied but the thrust of the counter-affidavit is to claim that the opportunity was already given to the petitioner. Further, in paragraph-8 in the counter, it is alleged that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer was called for, for further enquiry, which shows that some additional material was collected by the Collector before passing the impugned order regarding which, the petitioner had neither notice nor opportunity. 10. Even otherwise to the extent of the impugned order directing recovery of the said entire amount from the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel says that he has absolutely no objection to remit the said amount and prays this Court to grant direction, in that respect, along with some time. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has now retired and he is now almost senior citizen and prays that the further proceedings as envisaged in the impugned order be dropped. 12. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent fairly submits that if the petitioner is directed to reimburse the entire fees, with respect to both the children, for the period they have studied, in their respective institutions, the Government would not further pursue the matter. 13. Recording the above submissions and appreciating the fairness on the part of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 1st respondent-District Collector, within two weeks from today undertaking to pay the entire amount with respect to fees for his son and daughter, for the period, they studied in the A.P. Residential College for Girls and Boys, respectively, for the academic years as concerned and shall furnish his correct address and all the details to the 1st respondent in the said undertaking. 2. The 1st respondent shall thereupon intimate to the petitioner the amount payable as directed above and 3. On receipt of the said intimation, the petitioner shall pay the said entire amount within two weeks thereof. On receipt of amount as aforesaid, the 1st respondent shall not give effect the impugned order any further. 4. In default of the petitioner’s compliance that any of the conditions as above, the 1st respondent shall be free to enforce the impugned order in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 4th December 2008 kvr