IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10519 of 2008 Between: P. Sankara Rao, S/o. Taviti Naidu, Pappuduvalasa Village, Arakuvalley Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Rep by its Registrar. 2 The Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Araku Valley, Visakhapatnam 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 to issuwe a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not issuing B.L. Degree in favour of the petitioner and other certificates inspite of the petitioner successfully completing the BL Degree course and passing examination as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MREATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by P.Sankara Rao with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-1st respondent and the Principal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent in not issuing B.L. degree in his favour as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to Kondakapu community, which is classified as Scheduled Tribe. He pursued his Law course in the 2nd respondent-College pursuant to the interim direction given by the civil Court. After completing his law course, he requested for issuance of graduation certificate. Since the authorities refused to issue graduation certificate in his favour, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1 and 2 having permitted the petitioner to pursue law course are not justified in withholding the graduation certificates. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that the very admission of the petitioner is pursuant to the interim direction given by the civil Court and ultimately the civil suit ended in dismissal and therefore, withholding of the graduation certificate of the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 is justified. 5. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, the Mandal Revenue Officer is the competent authority to make verification and grant of community certificate. Such is the situation, the petitioner is at liberty to make an application before the Competent Authority for issue of community certificate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder. 6. Reserving the said liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th June, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}