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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4866

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Atlapakala Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare – Respondent
Writ Petition No.19409 of 2009



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G Chandra Shekhar Rao
For the Respondents: GP for Social Welfare (AP)

Undue cancellation of caste certificate requires adherence to procedural fairness; the burden of proof lies with authorities disputing caste claims.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 - Section 5 - Principles of Natural Justice - Writ of Mandamus was sought to declare the order of cancellation of caste certificate as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust due to the absence of proper inquiry and afforded opportunities. (Paras 1, 18)

(B) Caste Determination - Inquiry by authorities held that the petitioner did not belong to Konda Kapu (ST) community based on various records, notwithstanding petitioner's claims and evidence. (Paras 4, 7, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner belonged to Konda Kapu caste and was wrongly derecognized as ST by authorities, despite prior documentation supporting his claims. Evidence provided by the petitioner included school records and community certificates, which were overlooked in subsequent scrutiny.

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the principles of natural justice had been violated due to the non-disclosure of inquiry reports leading to adverse findings against the petitioner. The burden of proof regarding caste status lies with the authority disputing the claim.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate was justified without sufficient evidence or fair inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following due procedure in evaluating caste claims and held that the burden of proof rests on authorities disputing caste claims.

Result: Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the prior orders.

Table of Content
1. petitioner claims wrongful cancellation of caste certificate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. authorities deny petitioner's scheduled tribe claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. investigation and reports leading to adverse; inquiry principles discussed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court emphasizes procedural fairness in determination of caste. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court allows the writ petition, setting aside previous orders. (Para 17 , 19)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 19.06.2009 confirming the order of 2nd respondent in Roc.No.C5(M)/1268/2001, dated 15.09.2005 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void, contrary to Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 and against the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders …‟

2. Contents of the affidavit filed by Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that petitioner and his family members belonged to Konda Kapu caste, which is listed as Scheduled Tribe Community under the Presidential Order, 1950, and they are residents of Agency Tracks of the present East Godavari District from time immemorial; that throughout the educational career of petitioner, he was considered as a member belonged to Konda Kapu (Scheduled Tribe) community, except while he was studying B.Sc., Agriculture; that based on an inquiry, the Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by Proceedings dated 08.09.2001, informed the Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University that the petitioner does not belong to Konda Kapu community.

(b) That the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2244 of 2001 challenging the Proceedings dated 08.09.2001 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of, by an Order dated 20.12.2002 giving liberty to 2nd respondent to hold inquiry as to the social status of the petitioner; that thereafter, 2nd respondent held inquiry accordingly referring the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee headed by 3rd respondent, but the said Committee neither submitted report to 2nd respondent nor 2nd respondent issued any show-cause notice as required under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1993’) and Rules 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1997’) and without having regard of the same, 2nd respondent straightaway passed orders in Roc.No.C5(M) 1268/01, dated 15.09.2005, cancelling the caste certificate of petitioner issued by various authorities.

(c) Challenging the order of 2nd respondent, petitioner preferred appeal before 1st respondent as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, 1993, but 1st respondent erroneously dismissed the appeal vide G.O.Ms.No.69, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 19.06.2009, confirming the order passed by 2nd respondent. Though, the petitioner filed voluminous documentary evidence viz., Copy of Election Identity Card issued by the Election Authority, Identity Card issued by the Cooperative Society, Pattadar Pass Book issued by Revenue Authority in favour of petitioner’s father, Copy of D-Form Patta issued by Revenue Authority in favour of petitioner and other relevant documents, disclosing the petitioner’s caste as Konda Kapu, none of the respondents considered the same. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit, de

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