THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25466 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Additional Junior Civil Judge in the A.P. Judiciary. He was appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe. At the time of this appointment, he claimed S.T. (Erukula) status. On a complaint received against the petitioner as regards his social status, the District Collector, Chittoor, 1st respondent initiated proceedings as required under the A.P.(Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Casts and Backward Classes) Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993. The enquiry was entrusted to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, 2nd respondent herein, which in turn issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.09.2009. On a request made by the petitioner, the time for his appearance was extended and ultimately not only the petitioner appeared but also an Advocate was engaged. A request made by the petitioner for grant for further time was not acceded to. Ultimately, the committee submitted its report on 19.10.2009 to the 1st respondent. Based on the same, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.10.2009 to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why the action contemplated under the Act be not taken. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitts that his client was not given adequate opportunity by the 2nd respondent and almost an ex parte report was submitted. He contends that the committee was not constituted as contemplated under the Rules and only the Joint Collector, the chairman thereof conducted the entire proceedings. He made submissions touching on the merits also. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice and the petitioner can put forward all his contentions before the 1st respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the show cause notice. It is only in very rare cases that this Court would interfere with the show cause notices, such as where the notice is issued by an authority not vested with the power or that it is otherwise vitiated. The principal grievance of the petitioner is not about the authority of the 1st respondent to institute the proceedings or issue the show cause notice. His grievance is about the manner in which the 2nd respondent conducted the proceedings and submitted report. Assuming that the committee was not constituted in accordance with the Rules or that the petitioner was not accorded adequate opportunity to put forward his case, he can certainly bring these aspects to the notice of the first respondent. There is no reason to believe that the 1st respondent would overlook the serious defects, if they have crept into the proceedings. Even from the point of view of administration also, it is better that procedural defects if any are rectified at the initial stage than to permit them to remain and vitiate the proceedings at a later point of time. This Court is of the view that no interference is warranted with the show cause notice. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned show cause notice within 15 days from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to raise all the grounds including those relating to the constitution of the committee and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted apart from merits. The 1st respondent shall take the same into account duly verifying the record before the final order is passed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.11.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25466 of 2009 Date: 25.11.2009 JSU