IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27666 of 2008 Between: Nuvvula Srinivas S/o. Ummaiah R/o. 8-1-157, Gollaguda, Nalgonda Town. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra pradesh Represented by its Secretary to Government Backwad Classes Welfare (C1) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Nalgonda District at Nalgonda. .....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 issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the Order dt. 10-12-2008 in G.O.Rt.No. 378 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and the Order & Notification dt. 28-09-2006 in Procgs.No. H7/3787/2006 on the file o the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of AP. (SCs, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SYEDE KALEMUDDIN The Court made the following : ORDER According to the petitioner, he belongs to Perika Balija Community, which is notified as B.C-B category and he prosecuted his studies also as a B.C-B candidate right from the beginning. In the elections that took place in the month of September 2005, he contested for the post of Councilor from 13th Ward of Nalgonda Municipality, which was reserved for BC and got elected as the Councilor. The defeated candidate filed OP and the same is pending before the Election Tribunal. While the matter stood thus, on the basis of the complaint given by the District B.C Welfare Association, the Collector initiated proceedings under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993. After conducting a detailed enquiry, he passed an order on 28.09.2006 holding that the petitioner does not belong to BC Community. Against the said order, as a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent-Government, which, in turn, issued G.O.R.T.NO.378, dated 10.12.2008, confirming the orders passed by the Collector. Assailing the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Backward Class Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader has drawn my attention to Paragraph 9 of the said G.O. dated 10.12.2008, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “The appeal petitioner viz., Sri Nuvvula Srinivas has been requested to attend the hearing on 7.7.2008 at 12.30 pm before the Government in person or through his counsel through the Govt Memo 5th read above which has been sent to the Appeal petitioner through the Collector, Nalgonda Dist through speed post. Since the individual was not present on 7.7.2008; second notice through the Govt Memo 6th read above has been sent to the Appeal Petitioner through the District Collector, Nalgonda Dist through speed post for attending hearing on 13.10.2008 at 12.00 Noon before the Govt in person or through his counsel and the case has been heard on 26.8.2008 before the Govt.” From the above G.O, it is clear that the matter was originally posted for hearing on 07.7.2008 and when the petitioner and his counsel were absent, a notice was sent to the petitioner informing him that the next date of hearing is 13.10.2008. But, surprisingly, the matter was taken up for hearing on 26.08.2008 and the said G.O. was issued by the 1st respondent. When the petitioner was informed that the next date of hearing is 13.10.2008, the 1st respondent ought not to have passed any orders on 26.08.2008 as the petitioner cannot imagine that the matter will be taken up for hearing before the date of hearing fixed on 13.10.2008. As the said error committed by the 1st respondent is apparent on the face of record, this Court is of the view that the said G.O. is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, G.O.R.T.No.378, dated 10.12.2008 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law. The hearing and disposal of the said appeal shall be only after putting the petitioner on notice and giving him sufficient opportunity of being heard. The said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order granted by the 1st respondent staying the order, dated 28.09.2006, passed by the Collector, shall be in force pending disposal of the said appeal. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. __________ 26-12-2008 Note: Issue wire at party’s costs. (B.O) rkk