J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9275/87, quashing the proceedings issued by the 2nd appellant, dated 26-3-1989.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein questioning the show cause notice dated 26-3-1989 issued by the 2nd appellant -- District Collector, East Godavari, calling upon the first respondent-petitioner to show cause as to why the status certificate issued in his favour declaring him at konda Kapu should not be cancelled and why he should not be declared as kapu or telaga , as illegal and arbitrary, predetermined and biased. The contention of the first respondent was that the social status certificates were issued in his favour to the effect that he is konda kapu, which is a scheduled tribe after enquiries, and that at least two such enquiries were held by the concerned revenue authorities, as well as the Inspector-General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, in the years 1956, 1957 and 1988 and that the impugned proceedings amount to harassment, issued at the instance of the first appellant-Government of A. P. , which had already come to the conclusion that he is not a konda kapu and that repeated enquiries should not be permitted to be held. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the social status certificates were issued in favour of the first respondent after holding proper enquiries and that there was no warrant for holding repeated enquiries, after the revenue and police officials had already made enquiries and held that the first respondent is a konda kapu and allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 26-3-1989. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Collector, East Godavari District, have preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE first submission of the learned Government Pleader for the appellants is that the writ petition questioning the show cause notice is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the learned Judge should not have quashed the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that the question for determination of status social of a person is a question of fact and has to be enquired by competent authority, namely, the District Collector, and that it is not open to the Court to give a finding with regard to the social status of a person and that it was open to the first respondent to participate in the enquiry and to satisfy the competent authority, by proving his social status. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that even if there were earlier enquiries, it was always open to the competent authority to make further enquiries when a doubt is entertained and that there was no bar for holding such an enquiry. The last submission of the learned Government Pleader is that the learned single Judge was in error in declaring the social status of the first respondent, which is within the purview of the prescribed authority.

( 4 ) SRI Duba Mohanarao, appearing for the first respondent submitted that holding of successive enquiries amounts to harassment of the first respondent, which amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He contends that the father of the first respondent was shown as konda kapu as long back as in the year 1889, the genuineness of which cannot be questioned now. He contends that in the absence of an allegation of fraud in obtaining social status certificates and in the conduct of the earlier enquiries by the revenue and police officials, it was not open to the Collector to hold yet another enquiry. Holding of successive enquiries is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He lastly submitted that the first respondent is at the fag end of his service in the Indian Police Service and that it is not proper to subject him to harassment at this stage by holding repeated enquiries.

( 5 ) THE conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document