1. Petitioner in W.P. 11286 of 2006 instituted this writ petition praying to direct the respondents to prosecute 7th respondent in accordance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes an Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Act, 1993’), and to recover the pay and allowances paid to him as Member of Parliament and as Member of Legislative Assembly in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the Constitution of India and Representation of People Act, 1951. However, during the course of hearing, learned senior counsel fairly submitted that petitioner is not pressing the claim of recovery of pay and allowances during the tenure of 7th respondent as Member of Parliament.

2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 14742 of 2008 instituted this writ petition questioning the Endorsement issued by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.1220/2007 dated 15.12.2007 and seeking a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner application for grant/renewal of Community Certificate as belonging to Konda Dora community as per the procedure prescribed under the Act 16 of 1993.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel A.Satya Prasad, for petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Sri D.V.Sita Ram Murthy for 7th respondent, and learned Special Government Pleader for official respondents. Parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 11286 of 2006.

4. Learned senior counsel Sri Satya Prasad contended that in view of the categorical finding recorded by this Court in Election Petition No.13 of 1999 holding that 7th respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and his election was set aside on that ground, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the provisions contained in Act, 1993, criminal prosecution ought to have been launched against the 7th respondent. The inaction on the part of the State in not launching prosecution against 7th respondent in accordance with the provisions contained in Act, 1993, is ex facie illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.

4.1. Learned senior counsel has taken through the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short the Act, 1951), Act, 1993 and Rules 1997 made under Act, 1993. By relying on the provision in Articles 191 to 193 of the Constitution, which concerned Legislative Assembly of the State, he would submit that these provisions prescribed pre-qualifications required to a person to contest the election to State Legislature. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1951 also stipulates the qualifications. This pre-qualification would equally apply to a person contesting election to a reserved category seat. No person is entitled to contest unless he fulfills the requisite qualifications prescribed there under. Thus, at the stage of contesting election, if a person suffers ineligibility to contest, he would be deemed to be disqualified at that stage itself.

4.2. By referring to the disqualification provisions, he would submit that the provisions would clearly bring out that a person can suffer disqualification prior to participating in election, during the course of election and after election, as Member of Parliament/ Member of Legislative Assembly, as the case may be. A person, who suffered disqualification after election and while being a Member of Parliament/Member of Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, has to be visited with penal consequences. He would submit that no provision is made in the Constitution or in the Representation of People Act, to take penal action against a person, who earns disqualification even before participating in the election by suppressing true and correct facts. In the instant case, the disqualification is on account of clear suppression of his social status, obtaining Scheduled Tribe Certificate fraudulently and participating in the elections in the Constituency reserved for Scheduled Tri