HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2011 Between: Smt B. Suseelamma D/o B. Nagireddy ………….Appellant AND The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool and two others ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.2011 passed in W.P.No. 18386 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a native of Kurnool District claims that she belongs to Kondakapu community, recognized as a Schedule Tribe. The father of the appellant obtained a school certificate by adding ‘Konda’ before her community ‘Kapu’, which was made the basis for the appellant obtaining a community certificate on the strength of which she has joined the Telephones Department as a Telephone Operator and climbed upto the stage of Technical Supervisor. On a complaint received from A.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Association, Kurnool about the fraudulent claim of the appellant, the matter was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee under the provisions of A.P (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). The Committee after thorough enquiry submitted a report dated 18.11.2005 to the first respondent-the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, stating that the appellant does not belong to Kondakapu community but she belongs to Kapu (OC) caste and it has recommended cancellation of the community certificate issued in her favour. The first respondent after issuing show cause notice passed order dated 24.4.2006 cancelling the community certificate. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal before the third respondent-General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL Kurnool and the same was dismissed. Hence, the appellant filed Writ Petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the appellant is working in Telecom Department since 1975 and completed over 30 years of service and at no point of time there was no objection particularly when the department is aware of the community certificates issued by the competent authority to the appellant. He also submits that the representation dated 15.12.2005 submitted before the first respondent was not at all considered. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for the respondents submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on facts and relevant material on record and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Section 5 of the Act provides that where before or after the commencement of the Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes has obtained a false community certificate, the District Collector is empowered to suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned, an opportunity to making a representation. But in this particular case, the appellant obtained bogus community certificate and also after cancellation of the community certificate by the first respondent, she obtained interim orders and managed to continue in the employment for more than three decades. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as the learned Single Judge directed the second respondent to initiate appropriate steps against the appellant for withdrawal of the benefits secured by her and also recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 of the Act, the costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed may be deleted. Ends of justice would be met if Rs. 25,000/-, imposed towards costs, be deleted from the last portion of the order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part deleting the order in respect of imposition of costs of Rs. 25,000/- only and in all other aspects the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand operative as it is. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATE: 28.09.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.