IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 24207 of 2006 Between: S. Naraing Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, R/o. Donthi, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Revenue Officer, and Additional District Magistrate, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2. The Sub Collector, Medak District at Medak. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or Direction, declaring the order dt.25-8-1992 in proc.D.Dis.No.E4/7186/92 of the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 25-08-1992 in Proc.D.Dis.No.E4/7186/92 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Mannevarulu caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe community, and he was selected by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for Group IV post, and was appointed as Junior Assistant under reserved quota meant for Scheduled Tribes, and was working as such under the control of District Medical & Health Oﬃcer, Medak at Sangareddy. He was placed under suspension, vide proceedings dated 30-06-1984, on a complaint given by one C. Bhoomaiah on 12-09-1983 stating that the caste certiﬁcate produced by him was false. The petitioner states that he was dismissed from service by order dated 31-01-1989 even without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to him and without providing opportunity to present his case. Questioning the same, he ﬁled O.A. No.4053 of 1989 before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was disposed of directing the respondents therein to furnish copy of enquiry report to him, pursuant to which, the enquiry report was furnished to him, and ultimately an order dated 17-04-1998 was passed by the Department dismissing him from service, basing on the order dated 25-08-1992 passed by the 1st respondent, cancelling the Caste Certiﬁcate. The said dismissal order dated 17-04-1998 is under challenge in W.P. No.14957 of 2004. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is not aware of the order dated 25-08-1992, passed by the 1st respondent, cancelling his caste certiﬁcate, as the same was not communicated to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a show-cause notice, dated 10-08-1991 was issued to him, in which the proceedings of the Sub-Collector, Medak dated 19-11-1977 and the enquiry report of the Director of Tribal Welfare dated 28-04-1984 were referred to, and those documents were not furnished to him so as to enable him to give suitable explanation. Non-furnishing of these reports is violative of principles of natural justice, and vitiates the entire proceedings. Though the petitioner claims that he submitted his explanation on 26-08-1991 to the show-cause notice dated 10-8-1991, he did not allege therein that such reports were not furnished to him. In his further explanation submitted on 22-07-1992, he also did not raise any plea that he was not given copies of enquiry reports, but simply stated that he belongs to ST Mannewarulu caste, which is included as ST in the list of Scheduled Tribes as mentioned in Annexure-II of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and requested to drop further proceedings in the matter sought to be taken against him and do justice. That apart, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard in person vide notice dated 24-02-1992. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not provided any opportunity to put forth his claim, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel further contended that the reports of Sub-Collector, Medak, dated 19-11-1977 and Director of Tribal Welfare, dated 28-04-1984 are conﬂicting and therefore, the matter has to be referred to High Level Consultative Committee constituted as per G.O. Ms. No.3, dated 18-01-1989, for the purpose of resolving them. In support of the same, he relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No.12766 of 1992, dated 22-04-2002. The said decision has no application, inasmuch as there are no conﬂicting reports by diﬀerent authorities so as to refer the matter to High Level Consultative Committee, since the Director of Tribal Welfare as well as the Sub-Collector simultaneously found that the petitioner does not belong to ST community. The learned counsel further contended that as per Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 (Act No.16 of 1993), the District Collector is empowered to cancel the community certiﬁcate, whereas the caste certiﬁcate of the petitioner was cancelled by District Revenue Oﬃcer and Additional District Magistrate, Medak, which is illegal. But it is to be noted that Act No.16 of 1993 came into force with eﬀect from 15-05-1997 and prior to that, G.O. Ms. No.282 (S.W.J) Department, dated 19-12-1988 was governing the ﬁeld, whereunder the District Revenue Oﬃcer was competent to cancel community certiﬁcates. Under Section 6 of Act No. 16 of 1993, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims that he belongs to such Caste, Tribe or Class. But the writ petitioner failed to establish that he belongs to ST community. The enquiry oﬃcer veriﬁed the family background of the petitioner, the place of his domicile, the place of his study, the details as to his marriage and all other aspects relevant thereto and they amply prove that the petitioner does not belong to ST community. Under the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order and the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-09-2008 Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The District Revenue Officer, and Additional District Magistrate, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2. The Sub Collector, Medak District at Medak. 3. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}