IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 15094 OF 2004 Between: O.c. Sankshema Sangham Rep. by its President G.Karanakar Reddy and another ..... Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat, A.P., and another .....Respondents The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) By this writ petition, the Government Order No. 9 Backward Classes Welfare (C2) Department dated 17.05.2011 has been challenged by the petitioners. While reading the entire writ petition, to the best of our effort, we could not find any cause of action to file the writ petition except a portion of paragraph No.10, which the court has taken note of. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that paragraph No.10 constitutes the cause of action. Therefore, entire paragraph No.10 is set out hereunder: “..Thirdly while number of social groups or denominations are awaiting the inclusion of their groups into the list of Backward Classes, the irresponsible act of Government to extend the period of reservation without having any review/revision and making the affluent and creamy layer get benefited by the reservations for number of decades proves to be unconstitutional and that well defeat the true import of affirmative action. Moreover the State to justify its inaction and inefficiency in identifying S.C. B.Cs. with proper review/revision and to provide reservations to the entitled sections, started encroaching upon the percentage which is left out for the merit, which is evident from the recent notification issued by B.C. Commission proposing the increase in the percentage reservation for B.Cs. vide No. 1439/C/2010 dated 12.01.2011 and called for the reservations and suggestions from the public. It is severally protested and objections to that effect were submitted to the commission in time. There is no reference or recommendation which as legal sanctity from the side of B.C. Commission to the State Government for the extension of the period of reservation. It is stunning to note that on one hand B.C. Commission states that it has no material which held assist to suggested the extension of period with existing percentage of reservation, on the other hand proceeding with the increase of percentage of reservations. This amounts to reverse discrimination. The very enforcement of the G.O. and its ratification will result into indispensable or legal prejudice by abuse of due process of law as it causes the other groups or denominations to the subject to gross injustice and irreparable loss during the implementation till the ratification of the process by the “subject condition” mentioned in the said G.O. It is further submitted that the B.C. Commission Act clearly mandates the Commission to conduct periodical review/revision and the State Government despite the repeated requisitions from failed in allowing are giving approval to the proposal it greatly jeopardize the interests of both backward classes and advanced classes as well. But, the Government in the above said G.O. i.e. GO Ms. NO. 9 of 2011 stated falsely that the view may be taken place after the G.O. comes into effect. Technically, the G.O. passed by the State Government is not valid as no authenticated recommendation made by the B.C. Commission which is the proper authority to suggested further extension of period of reservation upon proper exercise with regard to the information relating to the socio, economic conditions of B.Cs. here there is no data pertaining to … Quantity …Percentage of individuals get benefited …Groups which are yet to be benefited …Caste wise census and their conditions including O.Cs. Now the B.C. Commission is adding fuel to the present stage of unless confusion by its proposal to increase reservations and creating hatred among the castes and sowing the seats disharmony among the social groups who are confronting for the due share...” In our understanding, against whom the petitioners’ grievance is and who is at fault, has not been mentioned in clear terms, except a portion which is relevant for the purpose of enquiry in this matter. The relevant portion is ....there is no reference or recommendation which has legal sanctity from the side of B.C. Commission to the State Government for the extension of the period of reservation… Although, the averments and the language do not make sense clear but we have taken substance of the matter. As the State Government understood the aforesaid allegations, and has replied to the same. We understood that without any recommendation of the Backward Classes Commission, the Government has passed the impugned G.O. In the counter affidavit, in paragraph No.7, the State/respondent has responded in the manner as follows: “…In reply to the allegations made in para 9 and 10 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the apprehensions of the petitioners are purely assumptions and without any basis. It is respectfully submitted that the State Government issued the impugned Government Order for extension of the reservations for the said period of ten years is done after duly considering the recommendation of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes vide its letter dated 11.4.2011. In pursuance of the proposals/recommendations by the Commission for Backward Classes, extension of further period granted vide impugned Government Order…” No affidavit in reply has been filed controverting the above statement. Hence, we have no reason to disbelieve the statement made in the counter affidavit and conclude that the impugned Order is passed based on the recommendations. Learned counsel for the petitioners says so many things during the course of his arguments. We do not feel necessary to record the same as the same have no foundation and basis in the petition itself and the same are not relevant either. It appears from the impugned Government Order, the communication from the Member Secretary, A.P. Commission for Backward Classes, has been referred. This communication is referred to in the statement made in the counter affidavit, under what circumstances the period for extension of reservations can be granted, as spelt out under Sec.11 of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes, 1993. Section 11 of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes, 1993 reads as under: Periodic revision of list by the Government: (1) The Government may at any time, and shall, at the expiration of ten years from the coming into force of this Act and every succeeding period of ten years thereafter, undertake revision of the lists with a view to excluding from such list those classes who have ceased to be backward classes or for including in such lists new backward classes. (2) The Government shall while undertaking any revision referred to in sub-section (1) consult the Commission. S Thus, it is clear that it is the bounden duty of the Government to take into consideration the recommendations of the Backward Classes Commission. Under the circumstances we are of the view that there is material as sanctioned by law namely recommendation of the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes and it cannot be said that the impugned Government Order has been passed illegally. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the Writ Petition. More so, there is no challenge to the recommendations made by the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes, as the impugned Government Order is based on those recommendations. No order as to costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. _____________ K.C. Bhanu, J. September 30, 2013 MAS