IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24385 of 2000 Between: Mirthiwada Threemurthulu … Petitioner AND The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24385 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 15.11.2000 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri Badana Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare and perused the record. A show cause notice was issued on 15.03.1992 by respondent No.1, whereby he called upon the petitioner to explain as to why his caste shall not be declared as Kapu instead of Konda Reddy. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation along with the documents on which he was placing reliance to prove that he belongs to Konda Reddy community. By order dated 15.11.2000, respondent No.1 held that the petitioner belongs to Reddy caste and not to the Scheduled Tribe at any point of time. The abovementioned facts revealed that though the proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1 prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules of 1997 (for short, ‘the Act and the Rules’), they were kept pending for more than eight years and orders were passed much after the commencement of the Act and the Rules. Under proviso to Section 5 of the Act, it is envisaged that where an enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate issued prior to the commencement of the Act has been commenced and is pending at such commencement, the record thereof shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue the enquiry and conclude the same under sub- section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Rule 9 prescribes procedure for conducting enquiry into fraudulent claims. The said Rule requires that the District Collector shall appoint a Scrutiny Committee and refer the dispute to the said committee and the said committee, after giving proper opportunity to the person against whom the allegation of fraudulent claim is made, shall submit a report to the District Collector. On considering such report, the District Collector shall pass an appropriate order. In this case, admittedly, the abovementioned procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules has not been followed. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Act and the Rules and pass a fresh order thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.31139 of 2000 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.08.2008 ES