Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
K. Brahmaiah - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12367 of 2019, 15974 of 2019
Decided On : 29-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate
Point of Law: As per the settled law, if the statute prescribes the manner in which an Act should be done, it should be done in that manner prescribed or not at all. This is the well known Taylor principle which has been time and again approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian and this high Court also
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 16 Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 - Section 5 - To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned proceedings R.Dis.Rc.A5/740/2009 dated 13.08.2019 on the file of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and Article 16 of the Constitution of India – Held, Petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. As the rules of natural justice were flouted and relevant statutory provisions were also flouted, the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. Since the failure occurred at a particular stage; the proceedings are set aside to that extent only -order dated 13.08.2019 by which the collector cancelled the Caste Certificates of the petitioners and the subsequent order dated 20.09.2018 are set aside and the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions namely, the District Collector is directed to issue a notice to the petitioners in terms of section 5 of the Act - Writ petitions are allowed
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed through selection in an examination held by the A.P. Public Service Commission in 1984. Both of them, as per the learned counsel, belong to Schedule Tribe (Kammara tribe). In the year 2009, the order impugned was passed by which their Caste Certificate was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were dismissed from service with immediate effect as their Caste Certificate was cancelled
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. As the rules of natural justice were flouted and relevant statutory provisions were also flouted, the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. Since the failure occurred at a particular stage; the proceedings are set aside to that extent only -order dated 13.08.2019 by which the collector cancelled the Caste Certificates of the petitioners and the subsequent order dated 20.09.2018 are set aside and the 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions namely, the District Collector is directed to issue a notice to the petitioners in terms of section 5 of the Act
Result: Writ petitions are allowed
JUDGMENT :
D V S S Somayajulu, J.
Both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing jointly with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The prayer in WP.No.12367 of 2019 is as follows :
"To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the impugned proceedings R.Dis.Rc.A5/740/2009 dated 13.08.2019 on the file of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and Article 16 of the Constitution of India"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed through selection in an examination held by the A.P. Public Service Commission in 1984. Both of them, as per the learned counsel, belong to Schedule Tribe (Kammara tribe). In the year 2009, the order impugned was passed by which their Caste Certificate was cancelled. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were dismissed from service with immediate effect as their Caste Certificate was cancelled. This order is impugned in WP.No.12367 of 2019.
4. In WP.No.15974 of 2019 the proceedings dated 20.09.2018 were challenged. These orders dated 20.09.2018 relate to the appeal filed against the order dated 13.08.2019 which is the subject matter of WP.No.12367 of 2019.
5. Learned Government Pleader appeared and contested the matter by filing counter affidavit.
6. The short and simple point that is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), before the District Collector comes to a conclusion to cancel the Caste Certificate issued to a person, he shall, before publication of the notification of cancellation, give an opportunity to the person to make a representation. Section 5 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
5. Cancellation of the false Community Certificate: (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes has obtained a false Community Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belongs to such Castes. Tribes or Classes, the District Collector may either suo motu or on a written complaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making representation."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that if the Collector comes to a conclusion that the Caste Certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall give a notice to the person likely to be affected a notice and after considering the representation he can publish the notification. Therefore, learned counsel submits that before the notification for cancellation of the Caste Certificate is gazetted, it should be preceded by a representation. He relies upon a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court U.Sanyasirao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 2 ALT 734 and argues that after the opinion of the District Level Scrutiny Committee is given, the Collector should have given an opportunity to the petitioners. He also relies upon a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court Duda Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department, (2005) 2 ALT 773 and argues that this Court should interfere. Learned counsel points out that before the final order is passed, an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioners and only thereafter the final order can be passed and published in the gazette.
8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the other hand relies upon the counter affidavit filed, additio
