The autocracy of the State akin to Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ assumes varied forms. In the present case, it manifests itself in repeated and unending enquiries into the caste status of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner’s claim of being a ‘Konda Kapu’, a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Andhra Pradesh, despite being affirmed time and again at various levels, is subjected to question once again by the State. By letter dated 04.09.2001, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, that on the representation made by the President, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribe Employees Association, Hyderabad, the State Level Screening Committee was to convene a meeting on 11.09.2001 to determine his social status. Having entered appearance through counsel before the Committee, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition interdicting the respondents from proceeding in the matter on the ground that the enquiry initiated was illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.

3. By order dated 28.11.2001, this Court permitted the proposed enquiry to go on subject to the condition that the materials relied on by the State Level Committee should be furnished to the petitioner. The respondents were however restrained from passing final orders in the matter. It is stated that pursuant to this order, the enquiry proceedings were not taken up at all.

4. Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, pressed into service several grounds to attack the enquiry sought to be initiated by the State under the impugned letter dated 04.09.2001. His first submission is that the State Level Committee had no jurisdiction under the relevant provisions to undertake such an appellate enquiry. His second ground of challenge was that the second respondent, who was impleaded eonomine, being the Secretary of the Tribal/Social Welfare Department of the State at that point of time and who was to head the State Level Committee as its Chairman, was acting mala fide in the matter. However, the officer impleaded as the second respondent is no longer holding the post of Secretary of the Tribal/Social Welfare Department of the State and would therefore not be the Chairman of the Committee now. The learned counsel however stated that the present Secretary of the Department, who would hold the post of Chairman of the Committee, filed a counter in the matter and the opinions expressed by him therein clearly demonstrated that he has already prejudged the issue and contended that even if the Committee was to enquire into the caste status of the petitioner under his tutelage, the end result thereof was a foregone conclusion. The third ground of attack is that the petitioner and his family were harassed time again as to their caste status and despite favourable findings being rendered by competent authorities at various levels time and again, the State was not prepared to give a quietus to the issue. The fourth and last ground of challenge is that the enquiry sought to be initiated was barred by the limitation prescribed by the relevant provisions of law.

5. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (Volume 73, Para 1, Page 9)defines a ‘writ of prohibition’ thus:

“A writ of prohibition is that process by which a superior Court prevents inferior Courts, Tribunals, Officers or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which they have not been vested.”

6. As succinctly put by the Supreme Court in EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (AIR 1962 SC 1893),a writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise.

7. The issue presently is whether the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of such a writ.

8. The State Level Scrutiny Committee which is sought to be entrusted with the task of