IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23048 of 2002 Between: Annika Pattabhi Ramu (Ramaiah) … Petitioner AND The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Babji for Sri K. Venkatesh Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23048 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in taking back community certificate dated 22.06.2002 under endorsement dated 06.09.2002, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M. Babji representing Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents. The petitioner was granted a community certificate showing him as belonging to Konda Kammari community. The said certificate was taken back by respondent No.2 on 06.09.2002. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that respondent No.2 has forcibly taken back the community certificate from him. According to the petitioner, no such power is vested in respondent No.2 and that his action is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. Sri P. Muralikrishna, Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rampachodavarm, he issued the community certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Konda Kammari community (Scheduled Caste), that complaint dated 05.08.2002 was received from the members of Dalith Chaitanya Voluntary Association of Rampachodavaram to the effect that the petitioner is not a Scheduled Tribe and his parents are Kapus and that in view of the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted in the native village of the petitioner on 06.09.2002 and the petitioner attended the enquiry in pursuance of the notice issued to him on that day. It is further averred that as the enquiry revealed that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kammari caste, the certificate issued in his favour was not valid and as such the same was taken back from him for initiating further action in the matter. Respondent No.2 further stated that the petitioner voluntarily returned the caste certificate and obtained an endorsement to that effect on 06.09.2002. Respondent No.2 also stated that the certificate is required for conducting enquiry by the District Collector for cancellation of the same under Section 5 of the Act and that the matter has already been reported to the District Collector, who would initiate necessary action as per the provisions of law. I have carefully considered the averments in the pleadings of the parties and the contentions advanced by their learned counsel. The procedure for issue of community certificate and its cancellation is governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. When once a community certificate is issued, it can be cancelled only by following the procedure contained in the Act and the Rules. It is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that respondent No.2 does not have any power or authority to hold an enquiry, much less to take back the community certificate already issued. As noted above, while respondent No.2 in one breath stated that the community certificate was taken back from the petitioner on 06.09.2002 in another breath he stated that the petitioner voluntarily returned the community certificate and obtained endorsement to that effect. Apart from this conflicting statement, his theory of voluntary surrender of the certificate by the petitioner is not supported by his own endorsement given to the petitioner on 06.09.2002, which reads as under: “Received original caste certificate (permanent caste certificate) No.174251 back from Annika Rattabhi Ramu S/o. Bhadram of Sirigindalapadu of Rampachodavaram (M). Sd/-. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rampachodavaram, Dt. 06.09.2002.” It is trite that in issuing community certificate respondent No.2 acts under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. He cannot, therefore, arrogate to himself the power and authority, which is not specifically conferred by the Act and the Rules after issuing the community certificate. Under the provisions of the Act, any complaint, regarding the false community certificates, can be entertained and the same referred to the District Level Committee under the Rules only by the District Collector under Section 5, before canceling the same. At best, respondent No.2 is entitled to send a complaint to the District Collector for initiating appropriate action for cancellation of the alleged false community certificate. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in taking back the community certificate (whether given voluntarily by the petitioner or taken forcibly from him) is absolutely without any authority of law. Though in the counter affidavit respondent No.2 submitted that an enquiry will be held by the District Collector to cancel the community certificate, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to report as to the action taken during the period between 27.12.2002 when the counter affidavit has been filed and today. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms. 1. The original community certificate shall be returned to the petitioner by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. 2. If enquiry proceedings have already been initiated under the provisions of the Act, the same shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 3. If an order has already been passed under the Act cancelling the community certificate, the petitioner shall be free to question the same in appropriate proceedings. 4. If no proceedings for cancellation of the community certificate have been initiated so far, liberty is given to the respondents to initiate such proceedings and pass appropriate orders after following the procedure under the Act. 5. If the community certificate is returned to the petitioner as directed in 1 (supra), the same shall be produced before the District Collector/District Level Committee by the petitioner, if it is required for the purpose of conducting enquiry. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.28912 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.02.2009 ES