Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 464 (TS)

Y. Ramachander Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-10

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2024
ORDER : 1. G.O.Ms. No. 70, dated 12.09.2007 issued by the 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The case of petitioner is that he belongs to Singitham Village, Nizamabad District and his caste is “Mannerwarlu” which is a Scheduled Tribe community. The Tahsildar, Yellareddy issued community certificate dated 11.05.1976 to that effect. Sixteen years thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate issued notice dated 27.07.1992 to show cause as to why the said certificate should not be cancelled. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad enquired into the matter and submitted his report together with statements of Sarpanch and VAO of the village who stated that they did not know his actual caste but they were called as ‘Doralu’. Petitioner is stated to have submitted explanation on 12.08.1992 and met the 2nd respondent personally on 15.10.1992 and pleaded that allegation against him is false and he does not know as to how his caste was recorded as “Kshatriya” in school records. It is stated that CB CID investigated the matter thoroughly and dropped the action having been satisfied that the allegation against petitioner was false. The two witnesses categorically stated before MRO that they do not know his caste and at the same time, they did not state that he belongs to Kshatriya community. Further, the Sarpanch, who is one of the witnesses, gave declaration dated 05.091992 that he never deposed before the MRO to the effect that petitioner does not belong to “Mannerwarlu” caste. It is also stated that order dated 18.01.1993 passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the caste certificate is bad and illegal. The said order was questioned by petitioner by way of an Appeal before the 1st respondent, which, without properly appreciating the case, rejected the Appeal. The grievance of petitioner is that the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry behind his back without giving opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who clearly stated that they do not know his caste. According to petitioner, Sections 5 and 8 of the AP (SCs, STs. and BCs.) Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 stipulates that government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation and in the instant case, no such opportunity was given to him. According to petitioner, Sections 5 and 8 of the AP (SCs, STs. and BCs.) Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 stipulates that government shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation and in the instant case, no such opportunity was given to him. Section 9 contemplates that the competent authority shall exercise power of civil Court and issue summons for examination of witnesses or documents, however, in the instant case, the witnesses were not examined in the presence of petitioner. It is well-settled that a statutory Appeal has to be independently decided by the appellate authority uninfluenced by the remarks that may be submitted by the primary authority. When the Appeal was directed against the order of the 2nd respondent, calling for remarks from that 2nd respondent and placing reliance on such remarks for deciding the Appeal without furnishing a copy of the same and calling for reply thereto is violative of principles of natural justice, laments the petitioner. 3. Rule nisi was issued on 05.10.2007 and the order of stay was granted. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the enquiries conducted by the Revenue Authorities revealed that petitioner and his family members were called as ‘Doralu’ and maintaining high status; further, petitioner's father was Asladar Police Patel and as per school records, caste of petitioner was recorded as “Kshatriya.” Though CBCID found that caste certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Yellareddy on 11.05.1976 and the same is an undisputed fact, such finding cannot establish that petitioner belongs to “Mannewarlu” ST Community. According to these respondents, entries in school records are made at the instance of parents/guardians, as such they cannot be disputed by the students. Section 6 of the Act casts a burden on the claimant to prove that he/she belongs to a particular community and petitioner failed to discharge such burden. It is also stated that cancellation orders were passed on 18.01.1993 in accordance with the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 282 SW (J-2) Department, dated 19.12.1988. 5. Heard Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 6. It is pertinent note that in school records, petitioner’s caste was recorded as Kshatriya. It is also stated that cancellation orders were passed on 18.01.1993 in accordance with the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 282 SW (J-2) Department, dated 19.12.1988. 5. Heard Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 6. It is pertinent note that in school records, petitioner’s caste was recorded as Kshatriya. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, entries in school records are made at the instance of parents/guardians, as such, they cannot be disputed by the students. Further, Section 6 of the Act casts a burden on the claimant to prove that he/she belongs to a particular community and petitioner failed to discharge such burden, as he himself pleaded in the affidavit that he does not know how his caste was entered as ‘Kshatriya’ in school records. The CBCID also enquired whether caste certificate was issued by the competent authority or not but not the genuineness of appellant’s status. Though petitioner claims that Village Administrative Officer and Sarpanch did not state that he belongs to Mannewarlu caste, the Sarpanch clearly stated before the Mandal Revenue Officer that father of petitioner throughout his life used to call themselves belonging to Kshatriya and Doralu and Mannevarlu caste is not existing in their village but Manne caste is existing. Moreover, the Mandal Revenue Officer during the enquiry and the then Joint Collector, Nizamabad, after careful examination of the record made available, cancelled the bogus ST-Mannervarlu caste certificate fraudulently obtained by the petitioner from the Tahsildar, Yellareddy after giving show cause notice, calling his explanation and giving a chance of personal hearing. In view of the above, petitioner cannot contend that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to prove his case. The respondents have categorically stated that cancellation orders were passed on 18.01.1993 in accordance with the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 282 SW (J-2) Department, dated 19.12.1988. 7. In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the appellate authority erred in issuing the impugned G.O. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.