Back
1983 Supreme(AP) 314
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
G.Venkateswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Dist.Collector, Khammam - Respondent
Decided On : 09-14-83
The phrase "agency tracts" used in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 is not confined to the Original tracts but can be enlarged to other areas taking into account other enactments.
Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ORDER (AMENDMENT) ACT 108 OF 1976 - AGENCY TRACTS - INTERPRETATION - EXTENT OF APPLICATION - GOUD COMMUNITY - WHETHER BELONGS TO SCHEDULED TRIBE - WRIT PETITION - DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Goud community, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to issue a certificate showing that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. The Tahsildar refused, stating that the Goud community in Burgampahad Taluk does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the phrase "agency tracts" used in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 should not be confined to the Original tracts but can be enlarged to other areas taking into account other enactments. The court further held that the petitioner belongs to the Goud community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community in the Agency tracts, and is entitled to a certificate showing his community as a Scheduled Tribe.
Issues: 1. Whether the phrase "agency tracts" used in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 should be confined to the Original tracts or can be enlarged to other areas taking into account other enactments. 2. Whether the petitioner belongs to the Goud community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community in the Agency tracts.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the phrase "agency tracts" in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 by examining the constitutional provisions, legislation, and history of Agency tracts. The court found that the Scheduled Districts Act XIV of 1874 and The Laws Local Extent Act XV of 1874 declared certain areas as Scheduled Districts and specified the extent of the application of the general law to those areas. The court also found that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 and The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Laws (Extension and Amendment) Regulation 2 of 1963 defined "Agency tracts" to mean the areas in the Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam, Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam, and Mahabubnagar. The court held that these enactments show that the Scheduled Districts are brought under the administration of the agent of the local Government and hence they are known to be Agency areas. 2. The court found that the petitioner belongs to the Goud community, which is a Scheduled Tribe community in the Agency tracts. The court relied on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976, which lists "goud (in Agency tracts)" as a Scheduled Tribe community. The court also relied on the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation I of 1959 and The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Laws (Extension and Amendment) Regulation 2 of 1963, which define "Agency tracts" to include the village where the petitioner resides.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and issued an appropriate direction certificate showing that the petitioner belongs to the Goud Community of the Schedule Tribe.
( 1 ) THE question that falls for determination in this Writ Petition is whether the phrase agency tracts used in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 should be confined to the Original tracts or can it be enlarged to other areas taking into account other enactments.
( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent-Tahsildar, Burgampahad Taluk, to issue a certificate showing that the first petitioner belongs to goud community of Scheduled Tribe. According to the first petitioner, this certificate will give some benefits for securing preferential treatment in the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the authorities in respect of Regional Engineering College, Warangal. It is averred in the petition that the second respondent issued an order on 12-11-1981 stating that according to G. O. Ms. No. 447 Medical and Health, dt. 10-7-1979, the case of goud in Burgampahad Taluk does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. On further representation, the Collector, Khammam stated that the Government issued instructions in G. O. Ms. No. 447, Medical and Health, dt. 10-7-1979 that Scheduled tribe certificate should not be given to non-tribal community of plains i. e. Goud and Gonda etc. , even though they reside in Scheduled Areas. It is further stated that distinct tribal community inhabitating in Scheduled Areas, whose traditional occupation is cattle rearing and it has no connection with Goud community etc. of plains area. The 1st petitioner also placed on record a letter addressed to his brother - one Gundla Prabhakara Rao issued by the Tahsildar, stating that goud caste in Burgampahad Taluk does not come under the Scheduled Caste community. The second petitioner is father of the first petitioner.
( 3 ) IT is contended that once the petitioner belongs to the goud community and the village Pinapaka is now being the Agency area, the authorities are bound to issue the certificate and the refusal is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be interdicted. The Tahsildar filed a counter-affidavit contesting the claim. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the contesting respondents, raised broadly two contentions: (1) The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act 108 of 1976 in the Second Schedule, Part I, Item (7) declares goud (in Agency tracts)" as Scheduled Tribe community, and the Scheduled Areas (Part A States) Order 1950 mentions only East Godavari, West Godavari and Visakapatnam as Agency areas and hence, no other area can be construed as Agency tracts for the purpose of the above Act. (2) The 1st petitioner does not belong to the goud Tribe, but he belongs to goud Caste and hence, the application is not maintainable.
( 4 ) SO far the second contention is concerned, the plea is opposed to the evidence on record. Even the impugned order of the Tahsildar, dt. 12-11-1981 states that goud caste of Burgampahad Taluk does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community. It is not as if there is difference in goud Caste and goud Tribe . The order dt. 21-2-1982 also states that goud caste in Burgampahad Taluk does not come under Scheduled Caste community. The learned counsel drew my attention to the statement of the 1st petitioner s father describing kulam thereby caste. It is clear that the word kulam or caste is used in a broad sense as the authorities are aware of the controversy and they are also stating that the goud caste does not come under Scheduled Caste community. The expression is not precise when they used caste. In fact the order of the Tahsildar dt. 21-2-1982 states Scheduled Caste community, though the controversy is Scheduled Tribe. So the word caste is used in general description of community but not as though the goud caste is different from goud tribe and I have no hesitation to overrule this submission.
( 5 ) SO far the first contention is concerned, the difficulty
