Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 152 (AP)

T. H. J. Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-19

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the notice issued by the 3rd respondent-Chairman and Joint Collector, District Level Scrutiny Committee, under From No. VI in Ref. C5/M/104/2018, dated 07.01.2019, calling upon the petitioners herein to appear before the Scrutiny Committee for caste enquiry, along with proofs, on 25.01.2019, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioners herein is that they belong to “Konda Kapu” community, which comes under Schedule Tribe category and all the petitioners are blood relations. It is stated that paternal grandfather of the 2nd petitioner’s father is Thumu Pamulayya, who was resident of Dusarapamu Village of Rajavommangi Mandal in East Godavari District, which is an agency area and his wife Sanyasamma, belongs to Okurthi Village, which is also agency area and they had a son by name Thumu Suranna. The said Thumu Suranna and his wife Atchiyamma had two sons, namely, Pothuraju @ Rajulu, father of the 2nd petitioner and another son is by name, Kalyanam. Father of the petitioner had four sons and two daughters and 1st petitioner is 3rd son and the 2nd petitioner is the 4th son of the said Pothuraju. The 3rd petitioner is the grandson of Pothuraju @ Rajulu and petitioners 4 and 5 are minor children of the 3rd petitioner. The said Kalyanam had only two sons and petitioners 6 and 7 are the grand children of Kalyanam. It is the further case of the petitioners that, their ancestors are permanent residents of Dusarapamu Village of agency area in East Godavari District and the petitioners born in the said village and studied there and they married the persons belonging to Dusarapamu, Gontivanipalem and Vendurthi, which are also agency villages in East Godavari District. It is also stated that they are exercising right of vote in agency area and they were also several times given Community Certificates by the Revenue Authorities. Further, it is stated that prior to independence, their ancestors were granted rough pattas by the British people and the LTRP Cases filed against the petitioners were dismissed as they belong to ST community. It is the further case of the petitioners that, during the caste verification of petitioner’s brother, Thumu Veerabhadreswara Rao, the Revenue Authorities made discrete enquiries and basing on the documents, mediator’s report, Community Certificates, Voters List, etc. It is the further case of the petitioners that, during the caste verification of petitioner’s brother, Thumu Veerabhadreswara Rao, the Revenue Authorities made discrete enquiries and basing on the documents, mediator’s report, Community Certificates, Voters List, etc. the 5th respondent-Tahsildar and the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer recommended to the 2nd respondent-District Collector to declare him as “Konda Kapu” Community and finally, the 5th respondent vide Ref. No. C/816/2008, dated 10.07.2008 issued a Community Certificate to the son of the 2nd petitioner’s brother as “Konda Kapu.” As such, petitioners” community remained as “Konda Kapu.” It is the further case of the petitioners that, a notice under Form VI, dated 07.01.2019 was issued by the 3rd respondent-Chairman and Joint Collector, District Level Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of community verification with regard to the Caste Certificates issued to family members of the petitioners, without verifying the earlier record and without disclosing the details of the persons who filed petitions before the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Questioning the said notice, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. To the said Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent-District Collector filed his counter denying the allegations, inter-alia, contending that State General Secretary of “Adivasi Samkshema Parishad” has made a complaint before the 2nd respondent, stating that the Revenue Authorities are issuing several bogus Schedule Tribe Community Certificates in all seven Mandals of Rampachodavaram, ITDA area to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, etc. on their migration to scheduled areas, due to which much injustice is being caused to original tribal people and the fake Schedule Tribe Certificate holders are enjoying ST reservation benefits in the fields of education and employment and aggrieved by the same, agitations also took place. As such the Joint Collector, East Godavari conducted a meeting with “Adivasi Sanghams” of Rampachodavarm Division, East Godavari District and assured for verification of caste certificates issued from 01.04.2018 onwards and accordingly constituted teams for verification of the ST Community Certificates issued in Rajavommangi Mandal, with a direction to submit reports to the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram and in turn to the Joint Collector, East Godavari District. Basing on such reports of the Tahsildars wherein it was stated that the petitioners were issued ST Caste Certificates without following the provisions contemplated under Act 16 of 1993, without verifying the supporting documentary evidence as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. Basing on such reports of the Tahsildars wherein it was stated that the petitioners were issued ST Caste Certificates without following the provisions contemplated under Act 16 of 1993, without verifying the supporting documentary evidence as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 58 Social Welfare (J2) Department dated 12.05.1997, by the then Tahsildar, Rajavommangi, against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated. Pursuant to the said reports, the petitioners are also given impugned Form VI notices, dated 07.01.2019, by the 3rd respondent. As there are no valid grounds to question the said notices, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that, the impugned notice is totally bereft of particulars and it is vague. On what basis and under what circumstances, the said notice was issued has not been mentioned. As such the present Writ Petition has been filed. He further contended that, the Community Certificate to one of the family members of the petitioners, was issued way back in the year 2008 and no complaint has been made against the said certificate so far. But, in the counter, for the first time, it was stated that the General Secretary, Adivasi Samkshema Parishad, Andhra Pradesh, has issued complaint against issuance of bogus caste certificates by the then Tahsildar of Rajavommangi, causing injustice to the original tribal people and in the counter it is also stated that, the respondent-authorities have conducted enquiry against the caste certificates issued from 01.04.2018. But, in fact the caste certificate issued to one of the family member of the petitioners is of the year 2008, but not after 2018, as such, petitioners’ cases cannot be taken into consideration for enquiry basing on the complaint given by the “Adivasi Samkshema Parishad” wherein it was complained that certain bogus certificates were issued after 2018. As such, issuance of notice, without application of mind is unjustified and therefore, interference of this Court is warranted. As such, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that, without submitting explanation, the petitioners straight away approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition, questioning the show cause notice, which is not permissible under law. As such, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that, without submitting explanation, the petitioners straight away approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition, questioning the show cause notice, which is not permissible under law. He further contended that, the petitioners can submit their explanation narrating the facts stated herein and by producing the documentary evidence, so that the authorities will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Instead of submitting explanation, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition, which is unsustainable and in fact the Writ petition itself is not maintainable. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also submitted that, under similar set of facts, Writ Petition No. 1939 of 2019 and batch was filed and the said Writ Petitions were disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2021 and the said order is placed on record and prayed to dispose of this Writ Petition in similar lines. 7. Perusal of the record goes to show that the Revenue Authorities i.e. Tahsildar has issued Caste Certificate to one of the family members of the petitioners on 10.07.2008, which is placed on record. Before issuing the said certificate, the Tahsildar has recommended for issuance of the Caste Certificate in favour of the said person vide proceedings 23.07.2007. In turn, the Revenue Divisional Officer also through proceedings dated 28.07.2007 recommended to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, declaring the community as “Konda Kapu.” Taking into consideration the said recommendations made by the Tahsildar as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Caste Certificate was issued to the son of 2nd petitioner’s brother Thumu Veerabhadreswara Rao. 8. Perusal of the impugned notice dated 07.01.2019 does not show the purpose and the circumstances under which the notice has been issued. On the other hand, in the counter, it is stated that a complaint has been received from “Adivasi Samkshema Parishad” with regard to issuance of bogus Caste Certificates by the then Tahsildar from 01.04.2018 onwards. No doubt, the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner is of the year 2008. This Court cannot decide genuineness or otherwise of the said certificate under the Writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner is of the year 2008. This Court cannot decide genuineness or otherwise of the said certificate under the Writ jurisdiction. As rightly contended by the learned by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if in the impugned notice particulars of the reports given by the Tahsildars and the Project Officer, ITDA, are clearly mentioned, as mentioned in the counter, the petitioners would have submitted proper explanation. He also rightly contended that in the absence of those particulars giving explanation is not possible. 9. This Court disposed of W.P. No. 1939 of 2019 and batch vide order dated 01.10.2021, which is placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In the said order it is held as follows: “22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate authority is directed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report of the team of the Tahsildars and the report of the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, dated 23.12.2018 submitted to the District Collector, to the individual petitioners to whom notices were issued to enable them to give an effective reply/explanation to the impugned notices dated 07.01.2019, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioners are at liberty to submit explanation to the impugned notices within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under Act 16 of 1993 and the rules of 1997 and communicate the same to the petitioners. It is needless to state that as notices were given to many candidates, enquiry may be conducted batch-wise, so that the correct facts would came to light. 23. All the writ petitions are accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.” As the issue involved in the above Writ Petitions is similar to the issue in the present Writ Petition, this Court is inclined to take the said order into consideration and dispose of this Writ Petition on similar lines. 10. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.” As the issue involved in the above Writ Petitions is similar to the issue in the present Writ Petition, this Court is inclined to take the said order into consideration and dispose of this Writ Petition on similar lines. 10. Taking the submissions made by both the learned counsel into consideration and the material available on record, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction: (i) The concerned authority is directed to furnish copies of the enquiry reports of the teams of Tahsildars and of the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram, dated 23.12.2018, which was submitted to the District Collector, to the individual petitioners herein, to whom notices were issued, to enable them to submit an effective explanation/reply to the impugned notices dated 07.01.2019, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) On receipt of such reports, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanations/replies, within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter. (iii) On receipt of such explanations, the 2nd respondent-District Collector is directed to complete enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under Act 16 of 1993 [the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue Of Community Certificates Act, 1993], by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. 11. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners fail to submit explanations within the time stipulated, the authorities are at liberty to take steps as per law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.