ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the community, nativity and date of birth certificate dated 13.03.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent showing that the petitioner belongs to Reddy (O.C.) community though the petitioner belongs to Konda Reddy (S.T.)

community as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

Gujarat and others1.

2012 (3) SCC 400

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure contemplated under rule 5 of the Rules are not followed. Rule 5(e)

reads as follows:-

(e) The Competent Authority should give reasonable opportunity to the applicant/parent/guardian to produce evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by the beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality to which the applicant/parent/guardian belongs. If any person or association opposes such a claim, opportunity to produce the evidence in person before the Competent Authority may be given to him or her. After giving such an opportunity to that person or association the Competent Authority may make such enquiry as it deems expedient and consider claims of the applicant/guardian/parent vis-a-vis the objections raised by his/her/their opponent=.

5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent stating inter alia that the enquiry reveals that the petitioner’s father belongs to Reddy community and his mother belongs to S.T. (kondareddy) community and the petitioner’s family is not residing at Rampachodavaram Village and the petitioner has studied from 1st to 8th class at Gokavaram and he studied 9th and 10th class at Rajahmundry which is a plain area; the family of the petitioner is residing at Gokavaram with his father and after following the procedure caste certificate was issued to the petitioner; on an enquiry conducted by the then revenue officials in the village disclosed that the family members never resided in the agency area of Rampachodavaram since his birth and he was brought up under the care of his father, who belongs to Reddy community; he never stayed in the agency tracts and he did not prove that he was brought up with the traits of S.T; he also relied upon the judgments in, Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others2 , Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat and

2006 (3) SCC 257 others3 and Jayashri Bhaskar Gosavi V. Vishwanath Krishnath Panke and others4.

6. Copy of the report given by the Village Revenue Officer, Grade-1, Rampachodavaram-3 dated 19.07.2021 is enclosed along with the counter affidavit. Basing on the said report, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an enquiry was conducted after the Writ Petition has been filed even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was brought up by his mother, but no such plea is made in the Writ Affidavit; a specific plea with regard to the non-compliance of the Rule 5(e) is also taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition saying that the same is not followed.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, as there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Collector under section 7(1) of the Act, the petitioner is given the liberty to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, the same may be disposed of in accordance with law.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Dated: 07.12.2021 EPS

3

2012 (3) SCC 400

2016 (13) SCC 312 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

119 W.P. No.12380 of 2018 Date:07-12-2021

EPS