The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.23758 of 2010 Date: 03-12-2011 Between: Gedela Girish, being minor represented by his father and natural guardian Sri Gedela Narayana Rao. ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare of A.P., 2nd floor, DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500 028 and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.V.Sivaiah Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.A.Abhishek Reddy, SC for Eamcet Counsel for respondent No.3: ---- The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to set aside Memo in Rc.No.2047/2010/TRI/VC-2, dated 13.09.2010, of respondent No.1. The petitioner was given a seat in B.Tech., Engineering Course, on the strength of the community certiﬁcate obtained by him as ‘Manna Dora’ community. Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned memo, wherein he has requested the Admission/Camp Oﬃcer, Online Counseling centre, Visakhapatnam, to suspend the seat allotted to the petitioner and to cancel the provisional clearance given by him on 05-09-2010, with the direction to the petitioner to appear before him along with an elder member of his family on 23-09-2010 to prove his tribal status.. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that so long as the community certiﬁcate issued in his favour remains in force, respondent No.1 has no power or authority to interfere with his right to pursue his education. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that the community certiﬁcate obtained by the petitioner in the year 1998 was not issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, who was the competent authority, but the same was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. A perusal of the impugned memo does not show that such a ground is mentioned therein. Even assuming that the petitioner has not obtained the certiﬁcate from the competent authority, the power is conferred on the District Collector under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certiﬁcates Act, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder and respondent No.1 is not empowered to interfere with the right of a person holding certiﬁcate so long as such certiﬁcate remains in force. Under Rule 9(10) of the Rules, respondent No.1 is competent to enquire into the correctness of any community, nativity and date of birth certiﬁcate already issued and if it is found that the said certiﬁcate is obtained fraudulently, he shall refer the case to the concerned Collector for its cancellation as per the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act. Respondent No.1 instead of taking steps in the said direction has addressed letter to the Admission/Camp Oﬃcer, Online Counseling centre, Visakhapatnam, to keep the seat in abeyance till the genuineness of the community certiﬁcate of the petitioner is established. As such a power is not available with respondent No.1, the impugned communication is set aside. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to exercise his right under Rule 9(10) of the Rules and ensure that an enquiry is initiated into the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner regarding his social status. The petitioner’s admission into the B.Tech., Engineering course shall be subject to the result of the enquiry and the order passed by the competent authority. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.30395 of 2010 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd December, 2011 LUR