IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.13719 of 2001 Between: Paladugu Venkata Lakshmi Narayana … Petitioner And Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur & 6 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13719 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 27.06.2001 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be Kammara by caste and belonging to Scheduled Tribe. He passed Intermediate during the academic year 2000-01 and appeared for EAMCET entrance test. Prior to that, he was issued social status certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Piduguralla Mandal, respondent No.4, in the month of June, 2000 showing that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Kammara caste). The petitioner has got admission in M/s. Gayathri College, Visakhapatnam in B.Tech., course. At that stage, an enquiry was initiated by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and based on a report sent by him on the social status certificate held by the petitioner, he was asked to appear before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, “the Committee”), which recorded his statement on 02.05.2001. On the basis of the report submitted by the Committee, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and ordered for cancellation of his community certificate. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly advanced two contentions, namely; (i) initiation of the enquiry by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, itself was bad, as he had no jurisdiction to initiate such enquiry prior to 03.08.2002, the date from which sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 came into force and that (iii) respondent No.1 denied the petitioner an opportunity of meeting the allegations pertaining to the alleged tampering of the school records and also his relationship with two persons by name Kandrathi Narasimha Rao and Lakkolu Varahalu. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of respondent No.1. In his order, respondent No.1 stated that the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare gave information regarding the background of the petitioner’s family and the traditions and practices of Kammara as a tribe as distinct from Kammara as a sub-caste of Vishwabrahmin caste. Respondent No.1 also referred to the school records of the petitioner and gave the finding that those records were found tampered apart from rendering a finding that the abovementioned two persons, namely, Kandrathi Narasimha Rao and Lakkolu Varahalu belong to Vishwabrahmin caste and that they bear relationship with the petitioner’s family. Rule 9 of the Rules provides the procedure to be followed by the Committee while enquiring into the fraudulent claims relating to the social status of a person. It is significant to note that sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 was added with effect from 03.08.2002. Under the said sub-rule, in respect of Tribals, the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person or on request made by an employer/educational institution/appointing authority, shall 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 to the Government for its cancellation as per the procedure laid down under Section 5 of the Act. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2001 when the said amendment has not come into effect. Dealing with Rule 9, as it stood prior to its amendment, a Division Bench of this Court in D. Sudershan vs. Government of A.P. and others[1] held that the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare was not competent under the Act and the Rules to enquire into the social status of a person and that at the most his opinion on the requisition from the Scrutiny Committee may be relevant under sub-rule (7) of Rule 8 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that it was the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare who initiated the process of verification of the certificate obtained by the petitioner. He was not vested with this power at that time, as sub-rule (10) of Rule 9 was not incorporated by then. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforementioned Division Bench judgment, it requires to be held that the very initiation of enquiry against the petitioner by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare cannot be sustained and consequently the order passed by respondent No.1 is illegal. There is another reason to invalidate the order of respondent No.1. The plea of the petitioner that he was not put on notice with regard to the alleged tampering of the school records and also his alleged relationship with Kandrathi Narasimha Rao and Lakkolu Varahalu has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner was given an opportunity of meeting the above two aspects, which were made the main basis for holding that the petitioner does not belong to Kammara community as a Scheduled Tribe, the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it suffers from violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, on both the abovementioned grounds the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate fresh enquiry by referring the dispute regarding the petitioner’s social status to the Committee. Respondent No.1 shall give an adequate opportunity to the petitioner to meet all the allegations and submit the relevant material before them to substantiate his claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.17117 and 23840 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2009 ES [1] 2002 (3) ALD 678 (DB)