IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22137 OF 2011 Between: M.J.Babu Raju ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Social Welfare and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22137 OF 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be a non-official member of the District Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification, dated 04.08.2010, issued by the Commissioner of Social Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad, requesting all the District Collectors to take necessary action to reconstitute a new District Managing Committee and send the compliance, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. As per Rule 17 (2) of the Rules, in each District the Magistrate shall set up a Vigilance and Monitoring Committee in his District to review the implementation of the provisions of the Rules. The said committee consist of the elected Members of the Parliament and State Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, Superintendent of Police, three group ‘A’ Officers, Gazetted Officers of the State Government belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and not more than three members from the categories other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having association with Non-Government Organizations. Admittedly, the petitioner is a non-official member in the said committee, which was constituted on 19.04.2004 after the General elections in the State. Even according to the petitioner the term of the Committee is coterminous with the term of the State Legislature. Hence, soon after the General Elections were held in the year 2009, the impugned circular was rightly issued for constitution of a fresh committee in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Rules. The contention of the petitioner that in spite of the impugned circular, no new committee was constituted and the committee which was constituted in the year 2004 was allowed to be continued till today cannot be a ground to restrain the respondents from reconstituting the committee in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the Mandamus as sought for cannot be issued contrary to the statutory Rules. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the second respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner while reconstituting a committee, if he is otherwise eligible. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J AUGUST 05, 2011 YVL