IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9918 of 2009 Between: Suman Rathod W/o.Ramesh Rathod R/o.Utnoor Village & Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Election Commission, Government of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner. 2 The District Election Authority, Represented by District Collector, Adilabad District. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Joint Collector, Adilabad District. 5 The District Level Scrutiny Committee & Joint Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District, represented by the Chairman. 6 A.Govind Naik S/o.Fakeer Das Naik R/o. Lingapur (V), Dandepally Mandal, Adilabad District. 7 Uyiike Sanjev S/o.Ghagroo R/o.Sangivi Village, Bela Mandal, Adilabad District. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the 5th respondent in conducting the enquiry into Case RC No. B7/2091/2008 in a biased manner without furnishing the relevant documents as asked by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to furnish the documents as asked by the petitioner by his application Dt. 09-01-2009 before proceeding with enquiry and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR W.P.NO. 9918 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) 1. This writ petition is directed against the enquiry proceedings being conducted by 5th respondent-committee into the social status of the petitioner. The said enquiry has been initiated by 5th respondent under the Andhra Pradesh (SC,ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act,1993 and Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” and “the Rules”) on the complaints by the respondents 6 and 7 and registered as RC No. B7/2091/2008. 2. The petitioner who is a sitting MLA of Khanpur constituency in Adilabad district alleges that she belongs to schedule tribe community, sub-caste being Lambada. The petitioner had contested the elections for the State Legislative Assembly in the year 2008 from Khanpur constituency and was elected MLA and is continuing as such. For the fresh term from 2009 also, the petitioner has contested the elections from the same constituency and is waiting for the results. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 9.1.2009 he requested the 5th respondent-committee to furnish her certain copies of documents to defend herself in the enquiry and she also submitted the requisite challan on 27.1.2009 under the Right to Information Act (for short “RTI Act”). The District Revenue Officer and Public Relation Officer under the RTI Act under his proceedings No. A7/82/2009, dated 29.1.2009 furnished to the petitioner the documents listed at Sl.Nos. 1 to 7 of her application and with respect to other documents, the petitioner was informed that since the 5th respondent is conducting enquiry and investigation into the social status of the petitioner, rest of the documents listed at Sl.Nos. 8 to 10 could not be furnished in terms of Section 8 (h) of the RTI Act. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under the RTI Act before the Joint Collector on 5.2.2009, who, however, declined to interfere with the order of the Public Information Officer, agreeing with him that certain documents which are subject matter of the enquiry could not be furnished as they would impede the progress of the investigation in terms of Section 8 (h) of the RTI Act. The appellate authority has specifically mentioned in the last para of its order as follows, “….Once the report is finalized the petitioner is at liberty to seek a copy of the entire enquiry report…………” The said appeal was accordingly dismissed by the order of the appellate authority on 25.3.2009. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the memo dated 2.5.2009 of the convener of the 5th respondent-committee by which the petitioner was furnished copies of documents listed at Sl.Nos. 1 to 7 and with respect to documents listed at Sl.Nos. 8 to 10 the petitioner was informed that the matter is under enquiry by the District Committee and as such they were unable to give the said documents. The petitioner did not take further steps after the said appellate authority’s order, but complaining that the 5th respondent-committee is conducting enquiry in a biased manner, the petitioner has filed an application on 2.5.2009 before the District Collector, Adilabad seeking change of the committee. While no orders are passed on the said application, the present writ petition is filed seeking urgent relief by way of lunch motion during our summer vacation sitting. 3. We have heard Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 to 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that withholding of the documents listed at Sl.Nos. 8 to 10 has seriously prejudiced the petitioner. It is also contended by him that the entire approach adopted by the 5th respondent-committee is biased in view of the fact that the said committee has physically visited the house of the petitioner’s father and made independent enquiry without any notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the petitioner’s affidavit filed along with the application before the District Collector, Adilabad for change of committee and in the said affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that DD Social Welfare has misbehaved with her, but no action has been taken against the said officer and it is also alleged that the Chairman of the committee has a biased attitude towards the petitioner. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that the enquiry is being conducted in accordance with rules issued under G.O. Ms. No. 58, Social Welfare (J), 12th May, 1997 and the scrutiny committee at the district level is a multi member committee and it has followed the rules prescribed under Rule 8 of the said Rules. He also contended that whatever documents that were permissible under the RTI Act were furnished to the petitioner and in any case after the enquiry is complete, she will be furnished with the enquiry report together with the documents to enable her to defend herself and as there is no violation of any provisions of the RTI Act or the Rules relating to the enquiry as above, as well as the principles of natural justice, the enquiry which is at the arguments’ stage, may not be interdicted by this court. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is to be noted that the petitioner has invoked the provisions of the RTI Act up to the first appellate authority and after the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 25.3.2009 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner has not questioned the said order. Even in the present writ petition the said order of the first appellate authority dated 25.3.2009 is not questioned. The documents listed at Sl.Nos. 8 to 10 of the petitioner’s application, alone, were not furnished as they are subject matter of enquiry and it would impede the progress of the enquiry in terms of Section 8 (h) of the RTI Act. The said order of the primary authority as well as appellate authority under the RTI Act having not been questioned by the petitioner by way of further appeal nor the said appellate authority’s order having been questioned in this writ petition, the issue relating to the non-furnishing of the said documents cannot be agitated by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that rest of the documents listed at Sl.Nos. 1 to 7 sought for by the petitioner have been furnished to her as is evident from the proceedings of the convener of the 5th respondent-committee dated 2.5.2009. 7. It is not in dispute that the said enquiry is being held from 2008 onwards and the first application made by the petitioner on 9.1.2009 before the Chairman of the 5th respondent-committee seeking documents, did not mention even a word about the alleged bias of the committee. When the said enquiry is said to be at the stage of arguments, for the first time, the petitioner has sought change of the committee by alleging bias under his application dated 2.5.2009. Even the said allegation of bias was made only on the ground that the committee has allegedly visited the house of the petitioner’s father and made enquiries. The allegation of bias against the Chairman of the committee made by the petitioner in her affidavit is, therefore, totally unsubstantiated and particularly in view of the fact that the scrutiny committee at the district level is a multimember committee. Rule 8 of the Rules provides that a scrutiny committee at the district level shall be constituted with the following officers viz. Joint Collector as Chairman of the committee, District Revenue Officer as Member (Convener), Deputy Director (Social Welfare), Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare)/District Tribal Welfare Officer as Member, Deputy Director (Backward Classes Welfare)/District Backward Classes, Welfare Officer as member, and then Officer of the Research organization in the Commissionerate of SW/TW nominated by the concerned Heads of the Departments as Member and also Officer representing the PCR/Vigilance Cell in the District as Member of the committee. Firstly, the committee is not comprised of single member, but is a multimember committee and it is not as if that the petitioner is alleging bias against all the members of the committee. Further the application filed by the petitioner on 2.5.2009 before the District Collector, Adilabad is pending, but within four days thereafter the petitioner has approached this court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The only reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the 3rd respondent ‘orally’ informed the petitioner’s counsel that final orders would be passed on 11.5.2009. Even otherwise, the 5th respondent-committee is only a recommendatory committee and the ultimate decision vests with the competent authority. The enquiry being conducted by the 5th respondent-committee prima facie appears to be in accordance with rule 8 of the Rules and under sub-clause 6 thereof the committee is entitled to conduct enquiry by giving public notice by the beat of drum or any other convenient mode and call upon any person to produce any evidence before the committee. As such the committee is entitled to make any such enquiry as it deems expedient and thereafter finalise its recommendations with brief reasons in support thereof. The recommendations of the committee would then be placed before the competent authority. Thus merely because the committee has allegedly made an enquiry at the village of the petitioner, by itself, cannot be said to be a conduct establishing biased attitude on the part of the committee. We are not satisfied with the averments of the petitioner and we feel that the present writ petition is moved merely on the basis of apprehensions. The petitioner having been unable to prima facie satisfy the grounds required for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, the writ petition is completely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 13.5.2009 KR _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Commissioner, State Election Commission, Government of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, 2 The District Collector, District Election Authority, Adilabad District. 3 Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Hyderabad. 4 The Joint Collector, Adilabad District. 5 The Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee & Joint Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 6. 2 CC to GP for General Administration on OUC 7. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}