IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 27091 of 2008 Between: Masram Nago Rao S/o. Late M. Laxman Rao 16-9-610, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social \ Welfare Department, A.P.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner /Director of Tribal Welfare Department, Telugu Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector and Magistrate, Adilabad, A.P. 4 The Joint Collector, Adilabad District. 5 The Tahsildar Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not passing order on the complaint, dt. 2-8-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 , 19G and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 18 of the A.P. S.C. S.T. and B.C. issue community, nativity and date of birth certificates rules 1997 consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to pass order on the complaint. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.27091 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. One Uyaka Sanjeev describing himself as a District President of Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi (Thudum Debba), Adilabad lodged a representation/ complaint, dated 02.08.2008, to the third respondent alleging that the sixth respondent herein does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and by falsely representing herself as Scheduled Tribe Candidate had contested the 243 Khanapur (ST) Assembly Constituency in the Bye-Elections held in 2008 and that in the circumstances, the third respondent should conduct an enquiry under Section 9 of the A.P.(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993. Complaining that the third respondent has taken no action on the complaint of Uyaka Sanjeev, the petitioner is before this Court, claiming to be a member of Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is wholly silent as to the juristic composition of Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi, whether it is a society registered under any enactment. Be that as it may. The complaint, a copy of which is filed as a material document in this writ petition, shows that the complaint is not by the Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi but by Uyaka Sanjeev, who describes his status as being the District President of Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi. Clearly therefore the complaint was made in the individual capacity of Uyaka Sanjeev. The complaint is not by Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi, whatever be the juristic status of Adivasi Hakkula Porata Samithi. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot canvass the grievance that the third respondent failed to act on the complaint of Uyaka Sanjeev, since he is not the complainant. On the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner is seen to have no locus standi to pursue the grievance in this writ petition. The writ petition for this reason is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to prefer a complaint, if so advised and thereafter, pursue appropriate remedies. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt.12.03.2009 Note: Issue CC as soon as possible. (b/o) VGB