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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 73708

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
RATHOD BHEEM RAO ADILABAD DISTRICT. – Appellant
Versus
THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
WP 11409/2004



HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11409 of 2004

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- “…calling for the records of the respondents pertaining to Proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Proc.No.B7/2921/97 dated 03.02.2001 and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.43, Social Welfare (CV-2) Department, dated 24.05.2004 of the 1st Respondent and Setaside the same by holding and declaring that the petitioner who is Lambada Caste and Community is entitled to be treated as Schedule Tribe Lambada Community…”

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that the petitioner is working as Constable in Adilabad District and submits that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Lambada) Community and his date of birth is on 10.02.1974. Earlier he completed his high schooling in the year 1992. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sarangpur issued Caste Certificate as well as residence certificate on 28.08.1993 stating that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe. The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad has issued certificate that the petitioner is working as Constable in the District Armed Reserved with P.C.No.2632 since 27.11.1993. Therefore, it is evident from all the certificates that petitioner, his father and forefathers are natives of Adilabad District and belongs to Schedule Tribe (Lambada).

4. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to appear before the District Level Scrutiny Committee for enquiry regarding Schedule Caste Certificate obtained by him. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed school record of his brother and also submitted copies of pahanies and thereafter the District Collector, Adilabad District cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 03.02.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Government on 17.04.2001 and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.43, Social Welfare Department dated 24.05.2004 and upheld the cancellation orders issued by the District Collector, Adilabad on 03.02.2001. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 stating that in view of recommendation of District Level Scrutiny Committee and in exercise of the powers conferred under sub Rule (7) of Rule 9 of A.P (SC/ST/BC) Issuance of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1995 and G.O.Ms.No.58 Social Welfare (J) Departmentdated 12.05.1997 read with Section 5(1) of A.P.SC/ST/BCs Regulation of Issuanceof Community Certificates, the fraudulent caste certificate obtained by the writ petitioner SriRathodBhem Rao S/o.Chendru, AR Constable residing at Adilabad as Lambada (ST) the MRO, Sarangapur cancelled duly declaring that the individual does not belongs to ST Community. Hence the orders issued by the District Collector dated 03.02.2001 in Re.No.B7/2921/1997 canceling the fraudulent caste certificate is not arbitrary and the authorities having strictly followed the procedure and as per the Rule, the order was passed and as such the impugned order passed by the respondents are not in violation of the Rules. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1997 SC Page No.2333 held to the effect that the findings of the scrutiny committee cannot be interfered by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said judgment, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court on 20.09.2004 has passed the following interim order in W.P.M.P.No.14512 of 2004:

“In view of the suspension of impugned order during the pendency ofappeal, the impugned proceedings has not been given effect, hence thereshall be interim suspension.”

7. On a perusal of the record it can be seen that respondent authorities have issued G.O.Ms.No.43 upholding the cancellation orders issued by the District Collector.

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