IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31605 of 2011 Between: M. Thrinadha Rao … Petitioner And Commissioner of Tribal Welfare D.S.S. Bhavan, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Viswanadham Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Deepak Bhattacharge This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31605 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to set aside Memo in Rc.No.2219/2011/TRI/VC-2, dated 18.11.2011, of respondent No.1. The petitioner was given a seat in M.Pharmacy on the strength of the community certiﬁcate obtained by him as Bentho Oriya community. Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned memo, wherein he has informed the petitioner, the District Level Scrutiny Committee and respondent No.2 that the petitioner’s community certiﬁcate does not appear to be belonging to Bentho Oriya tribe and accordingly, he requested respondent No.2 to keep his seat in abeyance without accepting fees until clearance certiﬁcate is obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.1. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that so long as the community certiﬁcate issued in his favour remains in force, respondent No.1 has no power or authority to interfere with his right to pursue his education. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that the community certiﬁcate obtained by the petitioner in the year 1988 was not issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, who was the competent authority, but the same was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. A perusal of the impugned memo does not show that such a ground is mentioned therein. Even assuming that the petitioner has not obtained the certiﬁcate from the competent authority, the power is conferred on the District Collector under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder and respondent No.1 is not empowered to interfere with the right of a person holding certiﬁcate so long as such certiﬁcate remains in force. Under Rule 9(10) of the Rules, respondent No.1 is competent to enquire into the correctness of any community, nativity and date of birth certiﬁcate already issued and if it is found that the said certiﬁcate is obtained fraudulently, he shall refer the case to the concerned Collector to the Government for its cancellation as per the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act. Respondent No.1 instead of taking steps in the said direction has addressed letter to respondent No.2 to keep the seat in abeyance till the genuineness of the community certiﬁcate of the petitioner is established. As such a power is not available with respondent No.1, the impugned communication is set aside. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to exercise his right under Rule 9(10) of the Rules and ensure that an enquiry is initiated into the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner regarding his social status. The petitioner’s admission into the PG course shall be subject to the result of the enquiry and the order passed by the competent authority. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39219 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.11.2011 ES