THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31490 of 2010 DT.22.12.2010 Between: Nandimandalam Abbiraju … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-22 and others … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.4 : AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: In this writ petition, though the petitioner has sought for multiple prayers, at the hearing, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, confined his submissions to the first part of the prayer, namely, inaction of official respondents in conducting enquiry into the social status of respondent No.5. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.5. On the complaint given by respondent No.5, FIR No.95 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner on 28.11.2007 in Sydapuram Police Station for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has thereafter submitted a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 raising the issue relating to social status of respondent No.5 and pleading before them that respondent No.5 does not belong to ST Community, as her father belongs to Reddy Caste. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the representation was made as far back as 05.07.2008, none of the official respondents have taken any action thereon. Under the provisions of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), whenever the social status of a person comes to the adverse notice of the competent authority, it is incumbent upon such authority to cause enquiry to be held into such social status and cancel the community certificate, if the authority after enquiry comes to the conclusion that the person concerned does not belong to that particular community. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have instituted enquiry under the Act and the Rules made thereunder on the representation of the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation and take action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31490 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 22.12.2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB