Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs T Varahalu on 23 August, 2022
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEFJUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT APPEAL No.760 OF 2021
(Through physical mode)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
(CV.2) Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
T. Varahalu, S/o T. Lova Raju, Working
as Agriculture Extension Officer, Peda
Sankarlapudi, Pattipadu Mandal, East
Godavari District and another
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Government Pleader for Social
Welfare
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. K. Satyanarayana Murthy
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:23.08.2022 (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J) This Writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17667 of 2004. By this order the Writ Petition was allowed and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 26.05.2004, which was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh cancelling the Konda Kapu ST Certificate obtained by the petitioner, was quashed.
2
2) This Court has heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, who is arrayed as respondent No.3, in W.P.No.17667 of 2004, supported the case of the appellants.
3) The 1st respondent has obtained a community certificate dated 23.06.1977 which certified that he belongs to the Konda Kapu (ST) community. This Certificate, dated 23.06.1977, was utilised by him for securing employment in the office of Director of Agriculture. Stating that he has obtained a false certificate a notice was served to him in 1989 seeking his explanation. Thereafter, enquiries were conducted and the District Collector cancelled his Community Certificate on 10.05.1989. Aggrieved by this, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.7105 of 1989 which was allowed on 12.06.2000. The impugned order dated 10.05.1989 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the official respondent for fresh enquiry. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted and District Level Scrutiny Committee which is formed under the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereafter (Hereinafter called as 'Act 16 of 1993' and '1997 Rules' for the sake of brevity), ultimately, cancelled the petitioner's caste certificate vide proceedings dated 24.04.2002. The 1st respondent preferred a statutory appeal 3 before the Government. The Government after a hearing, upheld the orders of the Committee and issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 26.05.2004, cancelling the caste certificate.
4) Writ Petition No.17667 of 2004 was filed challenging the same. The Learned Single Judge after consideration of the case and the report of the Committee came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has made out a case and cancelled the impugned GO. The State is in appeal before this Court.
5) In the Writ Appeal the learned Government Pleader for Women and Social Welfare, Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, argued the matter at length and also submitted a memo with case law wherein the following judgments were cited:
i) V.V.Giri v D. Suri Dora and others1
ii) Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur v
Y. Mohan Rao2
iii) Dharma Reddy v Sub-Collector, Bodhan,
Nizamabad Dist., and Others3
iv) Harpal Singh and Another v State of
Himachal Pradesh4
v) Union of India v S.M.Hussain Rasheed5
vi) Bokkam Ramam v District Collector,
Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam 6
vii) Bami Bewa v Krushna Chandra Swain @ Gochhayat and others7 1 AIR 1959 SC 1318 2 (1976) 3 SCC 411 3 AIR 1987 AP 160 4 1981 Crl.LJ 1 5 2003 LawSuit (AP) 853 6 2001 (6) ALD 691 4
viii) B. Suseelamma v Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool and Others8
ix) Puppala Anjaneyulu v Government of A.P. and Others9
x) K.P. Manu v Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate 10
6) Pursuant to this Court's direction he also produced and filed the original file pertaining to the 1st respondent's case, which was also considered by this Court.
7) Learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st respondent belongs to the family which bears the surname "TADE". He points out that examination of the issue by the concerned revenue authorities showed that the members of the 'Tade' family all belong to Kapu community and are not Konda Kapus (ST). He also argued that the genealogical tree of the 'Tade' family shows that they belong to the Kapu community(BC). The marriages of the members of the 'Tade' family were with the women belonging to the Kapu community. The 1st respondent himself married a woman belonging to the Kapu community by name Madduri Ramatulasi. The date of birth extracts examined by the Committee showed that the members of the family bearing 'Tade' surname were registered as Kapu community members in 1968, 1971 etc. It is also pointed out that the 1st respondent only produced School Leaving Certificate, 7 AIR 2004 Orissa 14 8 2011 (5) ALT 443 (SB) 9 2011 (3) ALD 757 10 2015 LawSuit (SC 178 5 Community Certificate, Nativity Certificate, Transfer Certificate issued by the McLaren High School, Kakinada, voters list and the Gram Panchayat etc. It is also pointed out that the caste of the 1st respondent's mother was also not established as a tribal. As per the appellant none of these documents are sufficient proof of the 1st respondent's claim. Learned Government Pleader points out that the order of the District Level Committee, which led to the impugned G.O. being passed, is a reasoned order which has discussed the various documents filed in a tabular statement and ultimately it was held that the 1st respondent does not belong to 'Konda Kapu' community. He relies upon the case law and in particular V.V.Giri case (1 supra), Principal, GMC, Guntur case (2 supra) and other cases to argue that the manner in which a person is treated by the members of the community is important. He stresses on the fact that the members of the 'Tade' family were recorded as Kapus and this is evidenced by their matrimonial alliances. Learned Government Pleader highlights the fact that this recognition by fellow members is an important factor in deciding the caste of an individual.
8) He also points out that based upon Puppala Anjaneyulu case (9 supra) that a caste certificate can only be issued by the Tahsildar of the area, which is in the scheduled area. Regarding the Date of Birth noted in the school certificates also learned Government Pleader states 6 that the same is not good evidence and he relies upon Harpal Singh case (4 supra). Bami Bewa case (7 supra).
9) The contention of the learned Government Pleader, therefore, is that after considering the evidence on record and the enquiries made by the revenue authorities, the District Level Scrutiny Committee came to a conclusion that the 1st respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe community. He argues that the learned single Judge did not consider these aspects properly and at best he could have remitted back the matter in case he was dissatisfied with the enquiry or the manner in which it was held. He also states that the findings of the learned single Judge, therefore, are not correct. He submits that there is application of mind, consideration of evidence and cogent reasons for the conclusions.
10) In reply to this Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner argues that the order passed by the learned single Judge is correct and valid. He points out that from 1988 onwards continuous enquiries are being held into the matter and the 1st respondent is being continuously harassed for no fault on his part. Learned counsel points out that repeated enquiries cannot be held on the same subject. It is urged that the surname Tade belongs to families of the ST category and the same surname is also found by people belonging to OC community etc. He also submits that in the course of enquiry 7 the 1st respondent's father and father-in-law were also examined. Both of them categorically asserted and stated that the 1st respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu community. The father-in-law clearly stated that he has given his daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent while being conscious of his community as Konda Kapu. All the family members are shown in the voters list as belonging to the Konda Kapu community only. He also argued that the RDO, who is the man on the field, has certified in his report dated 31.10.2000 that the 1st respondent belongs to Konda Kapu community. It is also argued that long before the litigation has started or a doubt has arisen the 1st respondent was asserting his Scheduled Tribe status and the same is borne out by his school records. It is also submitted that despite the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7105 of 1989, the District Level Scrutiny Committee did not exercise its mind as required under law. Learned counsel submits that the documents were merely brushed aside on the ground that they are not enough or valid to decide the case of the 1st respondent. The tabular statement reproduced in the single Judge's order is highlighted by the learned counsel to show that no "reasons" are given for rejection of the eight documents. He also points out that the mere fact that Tade is a surname belonging to the Kapu community does not lead to a conclusion that the 1st respondent is also a member of the Kapu community and 8 there is no independent evidence to show that the 1st respondent is a member of Kapu community. He points out that the order suffers from non-application of mind as it refers to the fact that the community of the 1st respondent's "mother" is not established. Learned counsel submits that this aspect was also noticed by the learned single Judge. The community of the father will have a bearing on the community claimed by the offspring and not vice versa. It is submitted that the learned single Judge clearly held that there is non-application of mind by the 1st appellate authority and that no reasons were produced for brushing aside the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent. He also relies upon Government of A.P. and Another v R.K. Ragala and another11 to submit that repeated enquiries cannot be held into the same issue. Therefore, he submits that there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same should be dismissed. COURT:-
11) In the opinion of this Court the submissions made by the learned counsels and the issues raised should be examined against the backdrop of the order passed by the learned single Judge in the earlier Writ Petition No.7105 of 1989 filed by the 1st respondent against the State and the provisions of Act 13 of 1993.
12) The 1st respondent filed this earlier writ challenging the order dated 13.05.1989 by which the 1st 11 AIR 1994 AP 238 9 respondent's Caste certificate dated 23.06.1977 was cancelled. Learned single Judge said that the impugned order of cancellation is based on some material which was collected behind back of the petitioner therein and some statements were recorded by the MRO himself. The 1st respondent was not supplied these materials and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
13) Act 13 of 1993 and the Rules also provide them a procedure to be followed for an enquiry. Section 5 of this Act gives the power to the District Collector to enquire into the correctness of any certificate (either suo moto or on a written complaint). The burden of proof as per Section 6 of the Act 13 of 1993 lies on the person who claims that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste, Tribe or a Class. Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 5 can appeal to the Government under Section 7 (3) of Act 13 of 1993. The Government shall after giving an opportunity to the appellant dispose of the same. Power of revision is also given to the Government. Section 9 also states that the competent authority shall have the powers of Civil Court while holding an enquiry. A procedure for an enquiry is stipulated in the 1997 Rules issued by the G.O. Ms.No.58, dated 12.05.1997. Of this, Rule 5 of Act 13 of 1997 deals with the procedure for verification and Rule 5 (b) directs the competent authority to examine the school records, birth registration certificate, if 10 any, and also examine the parent / guardian or applicant. The competent authority can also examine any other person who has knowledge of the social status.
14) There are two scrutiny committees one at State level and one at District level. The District Level Scrutiny Committee can also conduct an enquiry as per Rule 8 of the Rules. Rule 8(4) authorises the Scrutiny Committee to hold an enquiry, collect documentary evidence or any other related evidence about the correctness or otherwise of the information furnished or objections raised by any other person. Rule 8 (5) which has a bearing on this aspect is as follows:
"(5) The Scrutiny Committee shall examine the school records, birth registration certificates, if any, furnished by the persons during the enquiry. It may also examine any other person who may have knowledge of the community of the appellant. With reference to the claims of Scheduled Tribes, it may examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies / method of burial of dead bodies etc., of that particular tribe, to finalize its recommendations to the Competent Authority."
15) Rule 8 (7) gives the authority to the Scrutiny Committee to examine the revenue reports etc. The appellate authority at the State and the District level as per Rule 14 has the powers of a Civil Court for receiving evidence, summoning, examining any person or document or making a local enquiry and inspections.
11
16) Based on the submissions made by both the counsels and the evidence on record including the original file, which were produced pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22.03.2022, this Court is proposing to examine the matter.
17) The 1st order to be examined is dated 24.04.2002, which is passed by the Collector and District Magistrate. The order discussed the evidence collected till then in the first few pages. The Mandal Revenue Officer's report which revealed that the 1st respondent and his ancestors belong to Konda Kapu community and are following the tribal customs was taken into consideration. The School registers extracts produced by the 1st respondent were examined and the statements of the villagers were also noted. It was also noted that the 1st respondent got married to a daughter of a person belonging to the Kapu community. The MRO's conclusion was noted. The RDO's further report was also considered. Thereafter, it was held that the community of the mother of the 1st respondent was "not" established. The District Level Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the MROs report is not correct and it is based upon premises etc. In the opinion of this Court, no cogent reason is given why the report of the MRO is flawed except stating that it is not in proper line.
18) Coming to the documentary evidence, which was considered in a tabular statement this Court notices that the 12 finding is that the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar is not a valid proof to determine the caste of the individual "when the enquiry was going on". This certificate dated 23.06.1977 and by that date the enquiry was not going on and no proceedings were commenced. No other reason is given to negative this document.
19) The transfer certificate issued by the McLaren High School dated 02.05.1981 was negatived on the ground that school records are not documentary evidence to determine the caste of the individual. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant also relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Harpal Singh case (4 supra) in support of his contention that school records are not valid documents for determining the caste of an individual. This Court, however, notices that Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder cast a positive duty upon the Scrutiny Committee to examine the school records and other documents. Rule 5 (b) clearly states that the competent authority shall examine the school records and other documents. If the further enquiry is necessary, then Rule 8 (b) states that the Scrutiny Committee shall examine school records etc. Therefore, if the competent authority feels that a further enquiry is necessary before issuing a certificate it is duty bound to examine the school record, birth registration certificate etc. An equally positive duty is cast upon the Scrutiny Committee during the course 13 of an enquiry into the false certificate to examine the school records. This is borne out by the use of the word "shall" in more than one place in the rules enacted for the purpose of verification of a caste certificate. In the opinion of this Court, once the statute prescribes the method to do a thing it must be done in that method or not at all. This is the well-known Taylor Principle which was approved by the Supreme Court of India also.
20) In the case on hand the school record produced by the 1st respondent shows that his date of birth is dated 01.05.1964 and that his caste is "Konda Kapu." While Harpal Singh case (4 supra) is a judgement discussing the evidentiary value of school record in criminal case a clearer judgement on the subject is reported in State of Punjab v Mohinder Singh12. Paragraph 12 and 13 of this judgement at page 707 are as follows "12. On the contrary, the statement contained in the admission register of the school as to the age of an individual on information supplied to the school authorities by the father, guardian or a close relative is more authentic evidence under Section 32 clause (5) unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material to show that it is inherently improbable. The time of one's birth relates to the commencement of one's relationship by blood and a statement therefore of one's age made by a person having special means of knowledge, relates to the existence of such relationship as that referred to in Section 32 clause (5). 12 (2005) 3 SCC 702 14
13. As observed by this Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 2 SCC 202 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 200 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 396] ordinarily oral evidence can hardly be useful to determine the correct age of a person, and the question, therefore, would largely depend on the documents and the nature of their authenticity. Oral evidence may have utility if no documentary evidence is forthcoming. Even the horoscope cannot be reliable because it can be prepared at any time to suit the needs of a particular situation. Entries in the school register and admission form regarding date of birth constitute good proof of age. There is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer and all that is required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of official duty. In the instant case the entries in the school register were made ante litem motam."
21) Although this judgement refers to the Date of Birth recorded in the school register, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio of this decision squarely applies to the caste status of the 1st respondent which is recorded as Konda Kapu. This Court also notices that the entries were made ante litem motam. This Court does not find clear evidence of the kind noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to overlook or ignore the earlier caste certificate.
22) Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the District Level Scrutiny Committee made a mistake or committed an error in ignoring the documents produced and brushing it aside. Similarly, this Court also notices that the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch, nativity 15 certificate issued by the MRO were also brushed aside along with a copy of the study certificates. While the study certificates individually may not be enough to determine the caste of the individual, the totality of the circumstances should have been considered by the District Level Committee. Merely, brushing aside a document and stating that they are not valid documentary evidence is incorrect in the opinion of this Court.
23) Coming to the statements given by the villagers of Chintaluru village to which the 1st respondent belongs, this Court is of the opinion that the same was also brushed aside as invalid documentary evidence. Once again this Court feels both Rules 5(b), 8(5) were overlooked. This Court is of the opinion that the rules function as a beacon light or a guiding factor to the competent authority and the Scrutiny Committee to decide such issues. Any person having knowledge of the social status of the applicant etc., can be examined. Similarly, the parent and guardian can also be examined. The Scrutiny Committee under Rule 8 (5) also has the power to examine any person who may have knowledge of the community of the applicant.
24) The original record produced contains the statements of the father of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. He states that he belongs to the Konda Kapu community and that his in-laws also belong to the Konda Kapu community. It is also stated by him that although they belong to the 16 Konda Kapu community they are marrying into the Kapu community. The statement of the 1st respondent is also to similar effect. However, of particular importance in this Court's opinion is the statement made by the 1st respondent's father-in-law. He clearly admits that although he belongs to the Kapu community he has given his daughter in marriage in 1986 to the 1st respondent. He also submits that since he has six daughters, it was difficult for him to get alliances with the members of the Kapu community and therefore, he gave his fourth daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent even though he belongs to Konda Kapu community. In fact, in the submissions made by the 1st respondent on 19.04.1989 he relies upon the statement of his father-in-law and clearly sets forth his contention that the mere fact that he married a Kapu lady does not change his basic community. In addition, the MRO in his report dated 30.10.2000 which is after the disposal of the 1st writ petition has submitted a report wherein he states that enquiry was conducted in the village where the family members of the 1st respondent are residing and it revealed that the 1st respondent belonging to Konda Kapu caste and they are following tribal customs also. The villagers have also given a statement stating that the 1st respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu community. This is also referred to in the report dated 16.04.2001 wherein the MRO states that he has recorded statements from these people, who are the village elders and who have stated that 17 the 1st respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu community. It is also stated that they are following certain tribal customs by worshipping tribal goddesses. However, in the course of his personal enquiry he states that it is revealed that the 1st respondent is not a Konda Kapu. The 1st respondent has also produced a certificate issued by the Sarpanch on 22.05.1989 along with a statement given by the 11 elders which supports the case of the writ petitioner that he is a Konda Kapu. This is filed before the Joint Collector by the 1st respondent vide memo dated 20.04.2021.
25) These facts are being set out in detail because in the opinion of this Court, the District Level Scrutiny Committee ignored this vital information which was mandated to be considered by the statute in question viz., the Act 16 of 1993 and the rules framed thereunder.
26) This Court also has to notice and state that orders of this nature which have a vital bearing on the status of individuals can only be passed after due consideration of the entire material on record. Reasons must also be given for negativing and or refusing documentary evidence that has been produced by a party. Reasons are the heart beat for any decision. They provide the link between the facts and the conclusion. The law on this aspect is very well settled and need not be repeated here. Merely, brushing aside the evidence on the ground that the school records are not valid documents or that the voters list is not a valid document and 18 that the statements given by elders are not valid, is not enough by itself. The reasons should be furnished as to why this evidence is considered as insufficient. In the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd., v Masood Ahmed Khan 13 the Hon'ble Supreme court of India summarised the entire law about the need for reasons and held that rubber stamp reasons are not be equated with a valid decision making process. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohinder Singh case (12 supra) has clearly said that entries in a school register can be considered as an authentic evidence under Section 32 (5) of the Indian Evidence Act, unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material to show that it is inherently improbable.
27) The District Level Scrutiny Committee relied upon the fact that members of Tade family got married to the people of Kapu community. In the opinion of this Court in the age of social mobility the mere fact that a person is getting a spouse from a different community is not by itself enough to hold that he does not belong to a community. Social mobility is a factor which is a ground reality these days. Therefore, this by itself cannot be a ground to negative the 1st respondent's claim. In contradiction to this the father-in-law of the 1st respondent has himself stated on oath that he has given his daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent since he had "6" daughters and had difficulty in getting them married 13 (2010) 9 SCC 496 19 to members of his community. The statements given by all the villagers in which the 1st respondent grew up is also important. In a country like India particularly in relation to villages in India getting an authentic record is often difficult because of illiteracy, poverty etc. It is for this reason Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules correctly provided for recording all statements from the parents and others who are conscious of the caste of an individual. The way the members of the caste or a locality have treated the 1st respondent is important in the opinion of this Court.
28) This court also notices that an emphasis has been placed by the Scrutiny Committee on the photostat copies of the Date of Birth Extracts of the village. It is a fact that some of these entries relate to people bearing the surname Tade. This Court is of the opinion that in a matter of this nature when the proof of contents of a document is vital to determine the issue, the statutory authority cannot merely rely upon the document. Copies of the documents should be furnished to the claimants so that they get a chance to rebut the same or explain the same. The learned single Judge in the Course of his decision in first W.P.No.7105 of 1989 has clearly held that the authorities have relied upon the documents which were collected behind back of the writ petitioner therein. The entries which are relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee are not furnished to the 1st respondent. The file does not disclose that these entries were brought to the notice of the 1st 20 respondent or his father. The mere fact that these are supposed to be entries from the Date of Birth register will not by itself lead to a conclusion that the 1st respondent's caste is Kapu. The Committee relied upon the photostat copies of the extracts and did not also state that they have verified the originals. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was born in 1964 and these entries do not relate to him. The 1962 entry is said to be an entry belonging to the family of Tade Varahalu of the 1strespondent. The record does not reveal that it was confronted either to the 1st respondent or his father, who has given the statement, to establish its veracity and also to determine the conditions under which the said entries were made. This is the essence of a free and fair enquiry which in the opinion of this Court has not been followed even after the judgement was passed by the learned single Judge in this very same case.
29) Lastly, this Court notices that the claim of the 1st respondent was brushed aside on the ground that he has not filed any valid documentary proof like the Birth and Death Register. It is a fact that the burden of proof is on the 1st respondent but the ground reality cannot be lost sight of. The illiteracy and poverty in rural India cannot be totally lost sight of. Access to Government offices and furnishing of correct information is not possible even today. It is for this reason only that the Rules provide that the Birth Registration Certificate "if any" furnished by the person should be 21 considered. The rules clearly stipulated that the Committee should examine the anthropological, ethnological traits, rituals, customs etc., to determine the claim of scheduled tribes. Any person who has knowledge of the community can also be examined. The expert's opinion can also be obtained as per Rule 7 from members of the Scrutiny Committee belonging to the Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department. Persons, who have knowledge of the social status of the applicant also may be examined.
30) Against this background, this Court opines that merely brushing aside the case of the 1st respondent on the ground that the documents produced by him are not valid and that he did not produce the basic record like Deaths and Births record is contrary to law.
31) Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to record that the District Level Scrutiny Committee did not decide the matter as warranted by law. The order dated 24.04.2002 is, therefore, held to be contrary to law.
32) Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.45, was also issued on 26.05.2004. A perusal of this shows that the Government also did not act as warranted under law. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of this order set out the factual matrix. In paragraph 8 the decision of the Government is revealed and it merely shows from a perusal of the records of appeal and other material papers and after hearing it is observed that the writ petitioner has not filed any valid documentary evidence in support of his 22 ST Konda Kapu caste, except school record and voter list. It is further commented that the Birth and Death Register of Chinthaluru revealed that the caste of Tade is recorded as Kapu. Based on this and genealogical information, birth register photostat copies it is concluded that the Tade Varahalu belongs to the kapu caste. In the opinion of this Court, this order also suffers from the same vice. It does not contain a discussion of the evidence nor does it contain reasons for the conclusions. The mere fact that inter-caste marriages are taking place is not a ground to totally ignore his caste status. This is an issue raised by the 1st respondent himself, yet this has been overlooked and the statements given by the elders of the village and others have also been brushed aside.
33) Therefore, this Court holds that even this order is contrary to law. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.45 is also set aside because it does not contain reasons and it has overlooked the important documents, which are on the file. There is clear non-application of mind here also.
34) The learned single Judge clearly came to the conclusion that the District Level scrutiny (which he called as 1st appellate authority) has not independently applied its mind and has come to an erroneous conclusion. The impugned G.O. was also held to be based upon the improbable enquiry. For all the above mentioned reasons this Court agrees with the findings of the learned single 23 Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances with no costs.
35) Consequently, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Ssv