Judgment : The autocracy of the State akin to Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ assumes varied forms. In the present case, it manifests itself in repeated and unending enquiries into the caste status of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s claim of being a ‘Konda Kapu’, a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Andhra Pradesh, despite being affirmed time and again at various levels, is subjected to question once again by the State. By letter dated 04.09.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, that on the representation made by the President, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Employees Association, Hyderabad, the State Level Screening Committee was to convene a meeting on 11.09.2001 to determine his social status. Having entered appearance through counsel before the Committee, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition interdicting the respondents from proceeding in the matter on the ground that the enquiry initiated was illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. 3. By order dated 28.11.2001, this Court permitted the proposed enquiry to go on subject to the condition that the materials relied on by the State Level Committee should be furnished to the petitioner. The respondents were however restrained from passing final orders in the matter. It is stated that pursuant to this order, the enquiry proceedings were not taken up at all. 4. Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed into service several grounds to attack the enquiry sought to be initiated by the State under the impugned letter dated 04.09.2001. His first submission is that the State Level Committee had no jurisdiction under the relevant provisions to undertake such an appellate enquiry. His second ground of challenge was that the second respondent, who was impleaded eonomine, being the Secretary of the Tribal/Social Welfare Department of the State at that point of time and who was to head the State Level Committee as its Chairman, was acting mala fide in the matter. However, the officer impleaded as the second respondent is no longer holding the post of Secretary of the Tribal/Social Welfare Department of the State and would therefore not be the Chairman of the Committee now. However, the officer impleaded as the second respondent is no longer holding the post of Secretary of the Tribal/Social Welfare Department of the State and would therefore not be the Chairman of the Committee now. The learned counsel however stated that the present Secretary of the Department, who would hold the post of Chairman of the Committee, filed a counter in the matter and the opinions expressed by him therein clearly demonstrated that he has already prejudged the issue and contended that even if the Committee was to enquire into the caste status of the petitioner under his tutelage, the end result thereof was a foregone conclusion. The third ground of attack is that the petitioner and his family were harassed time again as to their caste status and despite favourable findings being rendered by competent authorities at various levels time and again, the State was not prepared to give a quietus to the issue. The fourth and last ground of challenge is that the enquiry sought to be initiated was barred by the limitation prescribed by the relevant provisions of law. 5. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (Volume 73, Para 1, Page 9)defines a ‘writ of prohibition’ thus: “A writ of prohibition is that process by which a superior Court prevents inferior Courts, Tribunals, Officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they have not been vested.” 6. As succinctly put by the Supreme Court in EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ( AIR 1962 SC 1893 ),a writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. 7. The issue presently is whether the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of such a writ. 8. The State Level Scrutiny Committee which is sought to be entrusted with the task of determining the petitioner’s social status is a creature of the statute. The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1993’) was promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to consolidate the law on the issue of community certificates to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1993’) was promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to consolidate the law on the issue of community certificates to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under Section 4 thereof, the competent authority, authorized by the Government by notification, is empowered to issue community certificates after duly satisfying itself about the genuineness of such claims. Section 7(1) of the Act of 1993 provides for an appeal from the order passed by the competent authority under Section 4 rejecting an application for a community certificate. Cancellation of false community certificates is to be effected by the District Collector, under Section 5 of the Act of 1993, either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person. Section 7(2) provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 5 by the District Collector may, within 30 days from the date of publication of such order in the A.P. Gazette, appeal to the Government. Section 8 enables the Government at any time to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration any decision or order passed by any person, officer or authority subordinate to it under the Act, either suo motu or on an application made to it within the prescribed period of time. 9. The Government is empowered by Section 20 of the Act of 1993 to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1997’). Rule 5 of these Rules prescribes the procedure for verification of an application for issuance of a community certificate by the competent authority. Under Rule 5(i) the competent authority, in case of a doubtful claim, is empowered to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, formed at the District Level, for its recommendation with regard to the issuance of the community certificate. Rule 8 provides for the constitution of a Scrutiny Committee (District Level) under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector along with the other named members. Rule 8 provides for the constitution of a Scrutiny Committee (District Level) under the Chairmanship of the Joint Collector along with the other named members. Under Sub-Rule (d)(1) of this Rule, the District Level Scrutiny Committee is empowered to conduct an enquiry regarding any doubtful claim referred to it by the competent authority under Rule 5. Under Rule 8(e), the Chairman of the Committee is required to send the recommendation of the Committee to the competent authority, stating clearly whether the community claim of the person in question is genuine or false duly furnishing reasons therefor. Rule 10 specifies that an appeal would lie to the District Collector within 30 days from the date of receipt of the rejection order of the competent authority for issuance of a community certificate. Rule 7 provides for constitution of a Scrutiny and Review Committee at the State Level, with the named officers, under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department. Sub-rules (d) and (e) of this Rule speak of the functions of the Committee and read as under: “7. Scrutiny and Review Committee (State Level):-A Scrutiny and Review Committee shall be constituted at the State Level with the following officers: ......... (d) This Committee shall review and monitor the functioning of the Scrutiny Committees at the District level constituted under Rule 8. It shall render necessary advice to the Government on various policy decisions to be taken for streamlining the procedure or on any other issues related to the issuing of Community Certificates as per Act. (e) The Committee may also render necessary guidance and advice to the Government on cases referred to it, where divergent and conflicting enquiry reports are received by the Government, in respect of the community claims.” 10. Rule 12 provides that the Government, either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved by the orders issued by any authority authorized under the Rules, shall entertain such application as a revision petition within 60 days of the communication of the said order. 11. This, then, is the statutory milieu. 12. Rule 12 provides that the Government, either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved by the orders issued by any authority authorized under the Rules, shall entertain such application as a revision petition within 60 days of the communication of the said order. 11. This, then, is the statutory milieu. 12. Under Rules 7(d) and 7(e), the State Level Scrutiny and Review Committee is to render necessary guidance and advice to the Government, be it on policy decisions for streamlining the procedure or any other issues relating to issuance of community certificates, or in the cases referred to it where divergent and conflicting enquiry reports were received by the Government in respect of community claims. No appellate jurisdiction is vested in this Committee under the Act or the Rules. 13. In the present case, the petitioner’s claim is that his ancestors originally hailed from Dharakonda Village of Chinthapalli Taluk of Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner’s father however settled down at Pattayagudem of West Godavari District before the advent of the Act of 1993. The petitioner was issued caste certificate dated 13.01.1984 by the Tahsildar, Chinthapalli, under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (E) Department, dated 30.06.1977, to the effect that his father was a native of Visakhapatnam District and that he belonged to ‘Konda Kapu’ community, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order, 1956. A similar certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Chintalapudi, on 25.06.1984 and was re-affirmed by him in the later caste certificate dated 07.09.1989. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, under caste certificate dated 22.12.1993, confirmed that the petitioner and his family ordinarily resided in Pattayagudem of Chintalapudi Mandal of West Godavari District and that they belonged to ‘Konda Kapu’ Tribe which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. 14. After the promulgation of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1997 framed under the Act, the Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, initiated an enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner through the District Level Scrutiny Committee and basing upon its recommendations, issued proceedings dated 08.06.2000 confirming the finding of the Committee that the petitioner belonged to ‘Konda Kapu’ community. Pertinent to note, the District Collector referred to the fact that the Government had issued orders under G.O.Rt.No.863, Social Welfare (J) Department, dated 20.08.1995, to initiate steps for cancelling the community certificates issued to the petitioner and the petitioner’s brother, Rayi Naga Raju. Significantly, by proceedings dated 16.08.2003, the District Collector, West Godavari, basing upon the recommendations of the District Scrutiny Committee, upon enquiry, declared the petitioner’s brother, Dr.Rayi Naga Raju, to be a Konda Kapu. 15. It is relevant to note that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.19082 of 1994 assailing the action of the State in re-opening the question of his social status in the year 1994. By order dated 27.01.1998, the said writ petition was disposed of, taking note of the fact that the District Level Scrutiny Committee had been asked to enquire into the matter, permitting the petitioner to file his objections before the said Committee. The Collector was directed to pass appropriate orders determining the caste of the petitioner within a timeframe. It is on the basis of this order that the District Collector, West Godavari District, passed the proceedings dated 08.06.2000 referred to earlier. It is also worthy to note that the District Collector, West Godavari, addressed letter dated 17.03.2009 to the Secretary to the Government, Tribal Welfare Department, vis-à-vis the caste status of the petitioner and his brother, wherein she concluded that their forefathers hailed from Dharakonda Village of Visakhapatnam District and that they belonged to Konda Kapu community, a Scheduled Tribe. She therefore confirmed the caste of the petitioner as Konda Kapu. 16. In the light of this overwhelming evidence and the repeated confirmation of the petitioner’s caste status, the question that arises is whether the Government is entitled to act upon the representation dated 29.09.2000 said to have been submitted by the President, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Employees’ Association, Hyderabad, once again casting aspersions on the petitioner’s caste status. The further question that arises is whether the Government could have entrusted such an enquiry to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 17. In his counter dated 22.08.2012, the present Principal Secretary to the Government (Tribal Welfare), Social Welfare Department, contested on merits the claim of the petitioner that he belonged to Konda Kapu community. The further question that arises is whether the Government could have entrusted such an enquiry to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 17. In his counter dated 22.08.2012, the present Principal Secretary to the Government (Tribal Welfare), Social Welfare Department, contested on merits the claim of the petitioner that he belonged to Konda Kapu community. However, there is no answer forthcoming from the counter as to how and why so many authorities at various levels, having enquired into the caste status of the petitioner and his family members, found in their favour. It is also not stated as to why the Government, if it entertained a doubt as to the validity of such decisions, did not invoke the revisionary powers available to it under the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1997 framed thereunder. 18. On the contrary, the matter is sought to be reopened on a complaint and entrusted to the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. However, upon due verification of the petitioner’s caste status by the District Level Scrutiny Committee and pursuant to its recommendations, the District Collector, West Godavari, already issued proceedings dated 08.06.2000 confirming that he belonged to Konda Kapu community, a recognized Scheduled Tribe. An appeal was maintainable against this order under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1993 and it could be filed by any person aggrieved by the said order. Surprisingly, the President, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Employees’ Association, Hyderabad, did not choose to invoke this remedy. 19. The power of revision available under Section 8 of the Act of 1993 is to be exercised suo motu or by entertaining an application in this regard within 60 days of the communication of the order impugned. This power was also not invoked by the Government, be it either suo motu or upon the complaint dated 29.09.2000 of the President, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Employees’ Association, Hyderabad. Strangely, the Government straight away referred the issue of determination of the petitioner’s caste status to the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. As the District Level Scrutiny Committee, West Godavari District, had already submitted a report favouring the petitioner which was acted upon by the District Collector, West Godavari, the proposed enquiry by the State Level Screening Committee was in the nature of appellate enquiry. As the District Level Scrutiny Committee, West Godavari District, had already submitted a report favouring the petitioner which was acted upon by the District Collector, West Godavari, the proposed enquiry by the State Level Screening Committee was in the nature of appellate enquiry. However, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 does not empower the said Committee to exercise such appellate jurisdiction. The wording of the Rule leaves no room for doubt that the Committee is only empowered to render advice and guidance to the Government on policy matters and in cases referred to it where divergent and conflicting enquiry reports were received by the Government in respect of community claims. 20. In the present case, there is no evidence of any conflicting enquiry reports having been submitted by the competent authorities under the Act of 1993 or the Rules of 1997. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare had enquired into the subject issue and submitted a report contrary to that of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, West Godavari. He is however unable to identify the source of power for such an enquiry by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare. This unofficial and unauthenticated report obviously would not fall within the ambit of a ‘conflicting report’ mentioned in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. The reference of the issue as to determination of the petitioner’s caste to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, practically in the nature of an appellate enquiry, is therefore clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee as postulated by Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997. The said Committee has no authority to sit in appeal over the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. 21. If at all, it was for the Government to exercise revisionary powers in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act of 1993. This however was not the procedure followed as perhaps, it could not have been done after expiry of the time prescribed under the Rules of 1997 for entertaining such a revision. In any event, the State Level Scrutiny Committee does not have the jurisdiction to sit in appeal and determine the petitioner’s caste status upon a stray complaint. 22. This however was not the procedure followed as perhaps, it could not have been done after expiry of the time prescribed under the Rules of 1997 for entertaining such a revision. In any event, the State Level Scrutiny Committee does not have the jurisdiction to sit in appeal and determine the petitioner’s caste status upon a stray complaint. 22. Given the number of enquiries, spanning over nearly 40 years, instituted against the petitioner and his family members with regard to their caste status, it is indeed disturbing that the State wishes to go witch hunting once again. The caste status of the petitioner’s family, having been settled as long back as in the year 1973, still continues to trouble them as the Government entertains doubts in this regard time and again. It is high time that the Government gives a quietus to the issue. In any event, the manner in which it went about re-opening the issue in the present case by seeking to entrust it to the State Level Scrutiny Committee cannot be countenanced. 23. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed holding that the State Level Scrutiny and Review Committee constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1997 has no authority to determine the caste status of an individual by exercising appellate jurisdiction. A writ of prohibition shall issue as prayed for. No order as to costs.