HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33712 of 2011 Date:28.12.2011 Between: Pallikonda Vinod .... Petitioner And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Jagan Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for Social Welfare Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.4: learned counsel representing Smt Anasuya The Court made the following: ORDER: In connection with making an application for award of dealership for running retail petroleum outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 for issuance of residence certificate. Accordingly, respondent No.3 has issued a certificate, dated 17.07.2010, to the effect that the petitioner’s residence at Nirmal, Bhagyanagar, is confirmed. Respondent No.4, who is another applicant for dealership, has submitted representation on 21.12.2010 to respondent No.3 with the complaint that the petitioner has obtained bogus residence certificate as he is a resident of Jagityal of Kariminagar District. By the impugned order, respondent No.3 has cancelled the residence certificate earlier issued by him. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner. At the hearing Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that once Nativity certificate is issued, respondent No.3 has no power or authority to cancel such a certificate and that, it is only the District Collector, after following the procedure prescribed 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 made thereunder (for short ‘the Act and the Rules’), who is competent to cancel such certificate. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that even if respondent No.3 has power and authority to cancel the certificate, he could do so only after holding enquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, representing respondent No.1 and learned counsel representing Smt Anasuya, learned counsel for respondent No.4, and perused the record. With respect to the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the certificate, dated 17.07.2010, issued by respondent No.3, shows that it is in the nature of confirmation of residence of the petitioner, and not the Nativity certificate as envisaged under the Act and the Rules. A reading of Rule-9 of the Rules would show that the District Collector is empowered to cancel the false Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates, if he is satisfied that a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes has obtained such certificates. In my opinion, the false Nativity Certificate which is referred to in Rule-9 of the Rules is in relation to such certificate obtained by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class. Every residence certificate, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of the Act and the Rules. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Nativity certificate is obtained by him under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was obtained by the petitioner only for the purpose of showing his residence in the context of applying for dealership of retail outlet of petroleum products. The certificate does not make a mention about the community of the petitioner. As such, unless the Nativity certificate is linked with the community of the person in whose favour such certificate is issued, the provisions of the Act and the Rules have no application. Accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel is rejected. Coming to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the impugned order does not show that any notice was issued to the petitioner before cancelling the certificate issued by respondent No.3 Respondent No.3 has stated in his order that he has got the issue enquired by Mandal Revenue Inspector, Nirmal. Unless the enquiry is held after notice to the petitioner and he is given an opportunity of putting forth his case regarding his residence, respondent No.3 ought not to have come to an unilateral conclusion that the petitioner is a resident of Jagityal and not of Nirmal, Bhagyanagar. Having already issued the certificate in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3 cannot cancel the same without holding a proper enquiry, after supplying the material on which he proposes to place reliance and giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain his case. The procedure followed by respondent No.3 in hurriedly cancelling the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is, thus, in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.3 to issue notice to the petitioner, supply the material on which he proposes to place reliance and hold an enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing a fresh order. Subject to the liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.41914 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th December 2011 Note: Issue CC by Monday. B/o DR