Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 32
2011 (2) ALT 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
K.G. SHANKAR, J.
U. Sanyasi Rao
Vs.
Govt. A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Social Welfare and others
W.P.No. 17446 of 2000
Decided on: 21-1-2011.
Mr. D. Vivakanand Patniak for Mr. D. Ramalinga Swamy, Counsel for the Petitioner.
C.P. for Social Welfare for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Thoom Srinivas, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Headnote:A) A.P. (S.CS., S.TS. AND B.CS.) REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT, 1993, Section 5 (1) - A.P. (SCs., S.Ts. and B.Cs.) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997, Rule 8 (6):- Where except for calling a personal appearance, Caste Scruitny Commmmittee had not called for the any reason from the writ petitioner, nor did the Collector gave a show cause notice to the writ petitioner, the action of the District Collector cancelling the caste certificate of the writ petitioner on the basis of the report of the caste committee, it is not in consonance with the statute or the principles of natural justice. 2005 (2) ALT 773 - Relied on. (Para 22)
B) A.P. (S.CS., S.TS. AND B.CS.) REGULATION OF ISSUE OF COMMUNITY CERTIFICATES ACT, 1993 Section 7 (2) – Notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the Government, writ petition was admitted because the writ petitioner had challenged the provisions of appeal to the Government. (Para 23)
Key Points: - The Court considered whether notice under Form-V and Rule 8 (6) suffices to satisfy hearing requirements under Section 5 of the Act. (!) (!) - The Court held that the District Collector must provide a show cause notice and opportunity to explain before cancelling a caste certificate under Section 5; mere appearance before Scrutiny Committee or a gist in a show cause notice is not sufficient. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The petition were allowed; the impugned order cancelling the certificate was set aside and the District Collector was to issue a proper show cause notice and follow due procedure under Section 5 of the Act. (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Whether notice under Form-V of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 ('the Rules', for short) in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules is not sufficient satisfaction of hearing the aggrieved party as envisaged by Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 ('the' Act', for short) is the main question in this writ petition. The writ petitioner laid the Writ for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the District Collector, Vizianagaram, cancelling the caste certificate already issued in favour of writ petitioner and also to declare Rule 9 of the Rules and Section 6 of the Act as ultravires the Constitution. However, Sri D. Vivekanand Patnaik, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner before me would appear to have given up the question relating to the viresness of the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Rules. He attacked the case on the factual side and also contended that reasonable opportunity was not accorded to the writ petitioner to represent his case.
2. The case of the petitioner is:
The writ petitioner belongs to 'nayaka' community. Nayaka community is a scheduled tribe. The parents, paternal grand parents and forefathers of the paternal and maternal side of the writ petitioner belonged to nayaka community. They belonged to villages around Andra Mandai, which are presently situate in Mentada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The forefathers of the petitioner have been following the traditions and customs of nayaka tribe. As the scheduled tribes were provided with statutory benefits, the forefathers have been enjoying the same as members of the scheduled tribe.
3. The parents of the petitioner migrated to Vizianagaram for their livelihood. They settled in the Nayaka Street at Vizianagaram. The petitioner was born on 01.07.1958 at Vizianagaram. His school record described the petitioner as belonging to Nayaka tribe. On 16.07.1986, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to nayaka tribe and that he is a member of the scheduled tribe. These are the basic facts on the basis of which the writ petitioner made his claim.
4. It would appear that in 1985, the petitioner joined as a causal worker with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) at Vizianagaram. It also would appear that in 1990, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Operator in IOCL. The Deputy General Manager (HR) and the Deputy Manager (Finance) of the IOCL, who are the respondents 4 and 5, would appear to have written to the District Collector, Vizianagaram to verify the community certificate of the writ petitioner produced by him. The respondents 4 and 5 addressed the letter to the District Collector on 05.05.1993. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this request to the District Collector by the respondents 4 and 5 was not on any suspicion regarding the community certificate of the petitioner but was an enquiry sought for in the routine course.
5. The District Collector referred the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram reported to the District Collector that an enquiry was made with Smt. Undru Annapoornamma, who is a sister-in-law of the father of the writ petitioner that the family of the father of the petitioner has been residing in Boya Street, Vizianagaram, that by occupation and other social customs, the families residing in Boya Street, Vizianagaram belong to 'Boya' Caste and that the caste certificate dated 16.07.1986 in favour of the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be cancelled. It may be noticed that boya community is a community within Backward Class Group-A in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. The District Collector also requested the Rev
