SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1789

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Chouhan Devanand – Appellant 
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 16607 of 2025
Decided On : 29-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : KOPPULA GOPAL
For the Respondent: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

The court upheld the cancellation of caste certificates based on a lack of valid documentation supporting claims to Scheduled Tribe status, emphasizing adherence to statutory due process.

Headnote:(A) The Andhra Pradesh (SCs, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 - Rule 9 of the Telangana (SC, ST & BC) Issue of Community Certificates Rules, 1997 - Cancellation of caste certificates of petitioners based on false documentation and political motivations. (Paras 2.5, 10.1)

(B) Natural Justice - Failure to provide notices to affected parties contradicts natural justice principles, affecting legal validity. (Paras 2.6, 2.7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested the legality of cancelled caste certificates; their ancestral claims and political affiliations were scrutinized in light of complaints regarding their caste status. The petitioners' claims were based on alleged ancestral ties to a Scheduled Tribe that were ultimately discredited by inquiry. (Paras 1, 2.3, 6, 9)

Findings of Court:
The certificates were deemed fraudulent as petitioners could not substantiate their claims of belonging to the ST Lambada community, and the proceedings for cancellation complied with legal standards. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of caste claims, due process in conducting hearings, and the resolution of complaints substantiating the cancellation of certificates. (Paras 4, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in verifying caste claims, against the backdrop of established documentation and complaints raised by individual dissenters. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Writ Petition dismissed with directions for due compliance regarding verification of social status of remaining petitioners.

Table of Content
1. caste claims based on political motives and unsustainable ancestral ties. (Para 2)
2. enquiries conducted adhered to statutory requirements ensuring proper verification. (Para 4 , 5)
3. cancellation of caste certificates validated due to procedural compliance and lack of proof of st status. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Petitioners question the Proceedings dated 28-05-2025 of the 3rd respondent cancelling the caste certificates issued by the 5th respondent in their favour, which were renewed from time to time. Consequently, a direction is sought to set aside the same.

2. On behalf of petitioners, the 1st petitioner stated that his grandfather, late Chouhan Ganapathi, belonged to ST Lambada community and was married to Subhadra of the same community. Their sons were Chouhan Kishan and Chouhan Sripathi. The 1st petitioner’s father, Chouhan Kishan, belonged to ST Lambada community and resided at Dignur Village, Bazarhathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. He married Jadhav Harnabai, daughter of late Jadhav Dagudu of Harkapur Village, Indervelly Mandal, also of the ST Lambada community. The said couple had seven children — Chouhan Devanand, Chouhan Shyamanand, Chouhan Jamunabai, Chouhan Sadanand, Chouhan Gajananand, Chouhan Namachand, and Chouhan Vijay.

2.1. The 1st petitioner resides at Itchoda Village and Mandal, Adilabad District and has two wives: (1) Jadhav Godavari, daughter of Jadhav Sampathi of Mediguda Village, belonging to the ST Lambada community, with whom he has five children including petitioners 2, 3 and 7, and (2) Pawar Saya Bai, daughter of Pawar Narayana of Sathnala Village, Jainath Mandal, also belonging to the ST Lambada community, with whom he has three children — petitioners 4, 5, and 6.

2.2. It is stated, the 1st petitioner’s maternal grandfather, Jadhav Dagudu, belonged to ST Lambada community of Harkapur Village, Indervelly Mandal. His maternal uncle, Jadhav Hari Chand of the same community, married Ranibai of Sambajiguda, Jainur, Adilabad District, and their son, Jadhav Prakash, resides in Mumbai, being a native of Sambajiguda, Jainur, Asifabad District.

2.3. While so, it is stated, the 1st petitioner contested the Local Body Elections for MPTC, elected from Itchoda Mandal, and served as Vice-MPP from 2013 to 2018 in a seat reserved for ST. The 2nd petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Itchoda Gram Panchayat for 2007–2012, and the 4th petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the same Panchayat for the periods 2013–2018 and 2019–2024 in a seat reserved for ST. It is asserted that all the petitioners are cultivating their agricultural lands situated at Itchoda Village and earning their livelihood while rendering public service as Sarpanch and MPTC without any interruption or allegations from any corner.

2.4. Whenever the 1st petitioner approached the All India Banjara Seva Sangh, Adilabad District for issuance of a community certificate for obtaining caste certificates from the Tahsildar, the organization issued such certificates recognizing him and his family as belonging to ST Lambada community. While so, in 2007, one Sri Kotnak Sathpath Rao, President of District Raj Gond Seva Samithi, Adilabad District, made a complaint dated 10-04-2007 before the official respondents requesting cancellation of caste certificate of the 2nd petitioner. Upon consideration of the records, the 5th respondent submitted a report to the 4th respondent stating that the complaint lodged by Sri Sathpath Rao was untenable. This clearly indicates that the said complaint was politically-motivated and lodged out of grudge. Subsequently, the 6th respondent, who is the President of All India Banjara Seva Sangh, Adilabad District made another complaint alleging that they obtained false caste certificates and availed benefits of MPTC and Sarpanch positions at Itchoda. Based on this complaint, notices were issued to the 1st petitioner, who submitted explanation before the respondents. Without considering the same properly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top