The relief prayed for by the writ petitioner, Nimmaka Jayaraju, is for a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the District Collector Respondent No.5 to initiate prosecution against respondent No.7, and direct respondent No.2 to recover pay and allowances paid to respondent No.7 while he represented as Member of Lok Sabha and also direct respondent No.4 to recover pay and allowances paid to respondent No.7 during the periods he represented as member, legislative Assembly and pass such other suitable orders.

2. The interim relief prayed for is for a direction to respondent No1 to dismiss respondent No.7 as Cabinet Minister of the Government of Andhra Pradesh during the pendancy of the writ petition and pass such other suitable orders.

3. This Court ordered notice before admission on 9-6-2006 and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department had taken notice and requested time to file counter affidavit. On 23-6-2006 Sri T. Nageswar Rao appearing on behalf of R-7 requested time to file counter. The matter was adjourned by three weeks. Inasmuch as no counter affidavits were filed, on 31-7-2006 this Court issued rule nisi and called for records and directed the W.P.M.P. to appear in the list on the next day and subsequent thereto the matter was heard.

CONTENTIONS OF SRI T ARAKAM:

4. Sri Tarakam, the learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the facts averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main prayer prayed for in the writ petition and also the interim prayer and would maintain that on the advice of R-1, R-7 was sworn as Cabinet Minister and R-1 or the other respondents may not be able to take any further action at all relating to the relief which had been prayed for, i.e., prosecution and the other appropriate reliefs of R7, till R-7 continues to be Cabinet Minister. The learned senior counsel also would contend that in a way, the first respondent also may be having bias towards his Cabinet colleague and may be the same may be the reason that despite representations made to R-1 and also to the Governor apart from others bringing all the factual details, no action is being initiated and hence, the writ petitioner is left with no other option except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also pointed out to the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge of this Court and which were confirmed by the Apex Court and would maintain that due regard to be given to the said judgments. The learned Senior Counsel also would contend that whatever may be the other reasons, in the light of the decision made by this Court and Apex Court which had been referred to in detail in the representation and also placed before this Court, it is clear that the 7th respondent played fraud on the Constitution inasmuch as it is clear that the respondent utilized a false and bogus caste certificate and got him elected from a constituency reserved to Scheduled Tribe and derived several benefits. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as 1993 Act for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that the District Collector being competent authority to initiate action, if the 7th respondent continues as cabinet minister, the concerned District Collector may not venture to initiate any action at all. The learned counsel also would contend that in relation to the recovery of emoluments or the benefits derived during the period of holding the elected office on the ground R-7 belongs to Scheduled Tribe, to facilitate the concerned to make further enquiry and also to make recovery it would be very difficult and a practical impossibil