IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.6436 & 5569 of 2000 Between: Smt.T.Shyamalamma, W/o A.Bhaskara Reddy, R/o 2-1273/1, B.V.Reddy Colony, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare (C.V.) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3 Andhra Pradesh Transco Limited, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Tirupati. .....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 a Writ order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Proceedings in ROC.No.C3/15702/97, dt. 17.3.2000 on the ﬁle of the Collector and District Magistrate Chittoor and Quash the same is being illegal arbitrary and without any authority or Jurisdiction apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and due process of law and rules of procedure prescribed in A.P. (ST, SC & BC) issue of community, Nativity and date of Birth certiﬁcate Rules 1997 and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. WRIT PETITION No. 6436 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.6436 & 5569 of 2000 ORDER: Petitioners, in both these writ petitions, are sisters. While the petitioner in W.P.No.5569 of 2000 still continues to remain in service by virtue of an interim order of this Court, the petitioner in W.P.No.6436 of 2000 ceased to be in service consequent upon an order of compulsory retirement being passed against her. The dispute in both the writ petitions relates to cancellation of their caste certiﬁcate. The petitioners claim that they belong to ‘Konda Kapu’, a schedule tribe as listed under the Presidential Order. It is their case that their ancestors originally belonged to Thimmapuram Village of Visakhapatnam District and that, consequent to their father being appointed as a constable in the police force of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, he was transferred from place to place including his being posted in Chittoor District. Sri K.Pavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would raise several grounds in his challenge to the impugned order of cancellation. Learned counsel would contend that if the Act were held to be applicable, then it is the District Collector and not the Joint Collector, who is the competent authority and, even if the impugned order of cancellation in W.P.No.6436 of 2000 is held to have been passed prior to the Act coming into force, the Government Orders issued from time to time prescribed the Director of Tribal Welfare as one among the competent authorities. Learned counsel would submit that the Director of Tribal Welfare would be the person most competent to enquire into the status of a person claiming to belong to a scheduled tribe and that, in any event, the Government was the custodian of the service records of the petitioners’ father, a police constable, who retired from service and passed away in 1980. Learned counsel would contend that, reliance placed by the respondents on the circular dated 02-05-1975, to contend that, since the petitioners’ father was working in Chittoor District and had left his village even prior to the Presidential Order coming into force, the petitioners were not entitled to claim the beneﬁt of Scheduled Tribe status, was erroneous since the Presidential Order does not restrict conferment of the status of a scheduled tribe only on ‘Konda Kapus’ belonging to a particular area. Learned counsel would rely on clause (2) of the circular dated 02-05-1975 to contend that the circular takes note of migration of a person from one part of the State to another part of the same State and speciﬁcally provides that he would continue to be deemed to be a member of the schedule tribe in relation to the State. According to the learned counsel, the mere fact that the petitioners’ father had been working in Chittoor District when the Presidential Order came to be passed did not disentitle the petitioners from claiming the beneﬁt of scheduled tribe status, which they were entitled to. Learned counsel would also point out that the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in his proceedings dated 28-08- 1995, had informed the Collector, Chittoor District, that the enquiry caused by him clearly showed that the petitioners’ ancestors belonged to ‘Konda Kapu’ tribe, that they belonged to Thimmapuram Village of S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and that they had left the village. Learned counsel would submit that these were all relevant documents which the Joint Collector had ignored while passing the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, would contend that the burden lies heavily on the petitioners to establish their caste status, and if they claim that they belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ tribe, nothing prevented them from producing the service particulars of their father to establish that they belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ tribe, that ‘Konda Kapus belong to the agency areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, more particularly, in Visakhapatnam and East Godavari Districts and that there are no Konda Kapus in Chittoor District. Learned Government Pleader would point out that the Tahsildar had issued the caste certiﬁcate though he had no jurisdiction to do so, and the very issuance of the caste certiﬁcate necessitated its being quashed. Learned Government Pleader would further point out that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 read with Rule 11 of the A.P. S.C. S.T. and Backward Classes – Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certiﬁcates Rules, 1997 (notiﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 12- 05-1997) to prefer a review to the Government which had jurisdiction to review such orders passed by the District Collector under any mistake, whether of fact or law, or in ignorance of any material fact. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, since this Court would not sit in appeal over ﬁndings of fact recorded by the Joint Collector and since the Government under the aforesaid provisions had the power to do so, the petitioners ought to be relegated to the alternative remedy of review under Section 11 of the Act. It is well settled that the burden lies heavily on a person claiming caste/tribal status to establish that he/she belongs to a particular caste/tribe. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not, ordinarily, re-appreciate ﬁndings of fact recorded by the competent authorities/Tribunals unless the said ﬁndings are either perverse or are based on no evidence. Another well accepted rule is that, if the petitioners have an eﬀective alternative remedy, this Court would refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners herein claim to belong to ‘Konda Kapu’ tribe and their claim is based on several factual aspects including the tribal status of their father. In such circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate for this Court to take upon itself the task of sifting the evidence and arriving at an independent finding of fact. Ends of justice would be met if the petitioners were permitted to prefer a review to the Government in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provisions. In case, the petitioners prefer a review within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Government, shall, after complying with all the statutory requirements, decide the review, in accordance with law, within a period of four months thereafter. Pending ﬁnal orders being passed by the Government in this regard and, since this Court passed an interim order in W.P.No.5569 of 2000 as early as on 11-08-2000 which order continues to subsist for the past eight years, it is but appropriate that the interim order be continued till ﬁnal orders are passed by the Government. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.6436 of 2000 has suﬀered an order of compulsory retirement and is no longer in service, her entitlement to the tribal status, or for other beneﬁts, would depend on the outcome of the orders passed by the Government in the review proceedings. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:03-11-2008 usd To 1 The Secretary to Government, Social Welfare (C.V.) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Transco Limited, Tirupati. 4 Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies