IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9074 of 2008 Between: Avula Sujith S/o. Prabhakar R/o. Kapparalla Tippa Village, Bogolu Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer-Cum-Tahsildar, Bogolu Mandal, Nellore District. 2 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not suspending the order of the 2nd respondent in RC.C5(M) 1498/2006, dated 22.03.2008, in the pending statutory appeal of the petitioner Memo No.3015/CV2/2008-2, dated 22.04.2008 preferred to the 3rd Respondent, aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd Respondent as illegal and arbitrary and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.03.2008, pending the statutory appeal of the petitioner before the 3rd Respondent dated 22.04.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.A.BALA BARATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} ORDER: This writ petition has been filed calling in question the correctness of the orders passed by the State Government, through a Memo dated 22-04-2008, whereby, during the pendency of the appeal preferred against the orders dated 22-03-2008, passed by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, headed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Nellore, the State Government had declined to grant stay of the operation of the aforesaid orders of the District Collector. 2. Herd the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and with his consent, the matter is taken for disposal at the stage of admission. 3. While the anxiety on the part of the State to weed out bogus claims of membership of Scheduled Tribes is understandable, the State Government is required to consider and evaluate the balance of convenience during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The writ petitioner has produced certain material such as the history of the Railway Thieves, 1904, which undoubtedly discloses the propensity of the family bearing the sur name ‘Avula’ taking to crime as a part of their living. 5. It is also noticed that from a very long time, members of such a community are treated as members belonging to ‘Erukula’ and the said community is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe community in Andhra Pradesh. As of now, the writ petitioner is prosecuting his B.Tech course. If the operation of the orders of the District Collector and Magistrate, Nellore, dated22-03-2008, are not stayed, during the pendency of the appeal, the damage that is likely to be caused to the petitioner would far outweigh and result in a permanent damage being visited to him. 6. It is well to remember that every appellate authority is entitled to reconsider the entire fact situation available on record and arrive at independent conclusions. Consequently, the State Government is entitled to come to an entirely different conclusion than the one, which was reached by the District Collector, in the proceedings appealed against. In such a case, the damage, which the petitioner will suffer, if allowed to subsist and if later on, the appeal is decided in his favour, the same will be mostly irreversible. 7. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the State Government in the impugned memorandum that the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour is erroneous. Let the operation of the proceedings bearing No.RC.C5 (M) 1498/2006, dated 22-03-2008, passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Nellore, remain suspended till the disposal of the appeal. I hope and trust that the State Government will be able to spare enough time to dispose of the appeal, preferred by the writ petitioner on 10-04-2008, within a maximum period of six months from today, at any rate, on or before 31-10-2008. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO NOTE: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. KVR