Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C. Medhita vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 November, 2022
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
W.P.No.30221 of 2021
Between:
# 1. C. Medhita,
D/o. C.Bhaskar,
Aged about 16 years, Minor,
Represented by her guardian/father,
C. Bhaskar, S/o. C.Siddaiah,
Aged 52 years, r/o Bazar Street,
Bhakrapet, Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Backward Classes Department.,
Secretariat, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector,
Chittoor District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Chinnagottikal Mandal,
Chittoor District.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 04-11-2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
+ W.P.No.30221 of 2021
Date:04-11-2022
# 1. C. Medhita,
D/o. C.Bhaskar,
Aged about 16 years, Minor,
Represented by her guardian/father,
C. Bhaskar, S/o. C.Siddaiah,
Aged 52 years, r/o Bazar Street,
Bhakrapet, Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Principal Secretary,
Backward Classes Department.,
Secretariat, Amaravati.
2. The District Collector,
Chittoor District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Chinnagottikal Mandal,
Chittoor District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri S. Pranathi
^Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Social Welfare
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.30221 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner being minor represented by her father/natural guardian Sri C.Bhaskar has filed this writ petition, being aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing community certificate dated 26.11.2021 showing her community as "Balija-OC" instead of "Perika Balija-BC-B"
in the community certificate, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Andhra Pradesh (Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 [for the short " the Act, 1993"] and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue fresh community certificate to the petitioner by certifying that she belongs to "Perika Balija BC-B" community.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for caste certificate in the month of November-2021 through the Grama-Ward Sachivalayam, Bhakrapet Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, claiming that she belongs to "Perika Balija-BC-B" community. The petitioner's family belongs to "Perika Balija BC-B" community which has been 4 categorized as backward caste (BC-B) by the Government. The school records of Sri Sairam English & Telugu Medium U.P. School, Bhakarapet, Chittoor District as well as the transfer certificate issued by Narayana English Medium High School, Kalur Village, Tirupathi Rural, Chittoor District also indicates the caste of the petitioner as "Perika Balija-BC-B"
and the same was mentioned in the school records. The petitioner's paternal uncle also belongs to "Perika Balija-BC- B" and the Chittoor District Perika/Perike Balija Sangam also issued a letter stating that the petitioner is belonging to "Perika Balija-BC-B".
3. The 3rd respondent filed counter inter alia stating that the petitioner failed to produce the documents as required by the field staff and a local enquiry was made through the VRO and Revenue Inspector concerned and they recommended that the petitioner belongs to "Balija-OC"
caste. The petitioner's father has been stated as "Balija-OC"
caste in the society and has marital relationships in "Balija" community. Even though the petitioner and her family belongs to Bakarapet Village in Chinnagottigallu Mandal, they have not claimed as backward community previously 5 and the petitioner has applied for caste certificate for the first time. Basing on the local enquiry as it was informed by the field staff that the petitioner belongs to "Balija- OC" caste, the petitioner was issued a "Balija-OC" community certificate.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for issuance of community certificate claiming that she belongs to "Perika Balija-BC" along with her school records, Transfer certificate and a certificate issued by the Chittoor District Perika/Perike Balija Sangam. The provisions of the Section-4 contemplates that the 3rd respondent being competent authority has to enquire into the said claim of the petitioner and follow the procedure for issuance of community certificate and if he intends to reject the application, he has to give reasons to the petitioner. But the 3rd respondent without conducting enquiry into the claim of the petitioner, the impugned community certificate was issued to the petitioner showing her caste is "Balija-OC" though she sought for issuance of BC-B certificate.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare Department submits that if the petitioner is 6 aggrieved by the community certificate issued on 26.11.2021 mentioning her caste as "Balija-OC", the petitioner shall prefer an appeal as per the provisions of Section-7 of the Act, 1993 before the concerned District Collector within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of community certificate. Procedure prescribed under Section-4 of the Act, 1993 is duly followed. Hence, the contention of the petitioner could not be countenanced.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record this Court found that issuance of the community certificate by the 3rd respondent dated 26.11.2021 mentioning the caste of the petitioner as "Balija- OC" caste without conducting enquiry as per the prescribed procedure contemplated under Section-4 of the Act, 1993, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
7. The 3rd respondent-Tashildar is Competent Authority to issue a community certificate to the petitioner on submission of application as per the provisions of Section-3 & 4 of the Act, 1993, which contemplates the procedure for 7 issuance of community certificate. Section-4 of the Act, 1993, reads as follows:-
"Section-4: Community Certificate to be issued by competent authority: -
(1) The Competent Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 3, satisfy itself about the genuineness or otherwise of the claim made therein and thereafter issue a community certificate within such period and in such form as may be prescribed or reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. A certificate in regard to community issued by any person, officer or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid.
(2) Before the issue or rejection of a certificate under sub-section (1) the competent authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."
8. The Rules 1 to 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Rules for Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1997 [for the short "the rules"] deals with the manner, method and issuance of the certificates, cancellation of false certificates, procedure for verification, burden of proof of claims, security and review by the committees constituted under the Rules 7 & 8 of the rules. 8
9. But it is found that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar has not conducted enquiry and only verified particulars of the petitioner from the field staff before issue the impugned community certificate.
10. It appears the 3rd respondent has not conducted any enquiry and merely basing on the recommendations of the field staff, though the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of caste certificate claiming her community as "Perika Balija BC-B" community, instead of issuing or rejecting the same, he issued community certificate to the petitioner as "Balija-OC" caste which is unwarranted. If the 3rd respondent is not satisfied with the evidence placed before him, he has to conduct a detailed enquiry and pass a reasoned order, rejecting the community certificate as claimed by the petitioner as "Perika Balija BC-B" and communicate the same to the petitioner. If a reasonable rejection order was passed, the petitioner would have an opportunity to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority. In the absence of the reasoned rejection order, petitioner could not avail the appellate remedy. The petitioner has approached this Court straight away by way of the 9 present writ petition. She cannot be relegated to the Appellate Authority as she is also handicapped to raise valid grounds in the appeal. Therefore this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to set aside the impugned Community Certificate dated 26.11.2021 issued to the petitioner as belonging to "Balija- OC" and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of her claim for issuance of community certificate of "Perika Balija BC-B" as per the provisions of the Act, 1993 and rules made there under and pass a reasonable order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to say that petitioner shall cooperate with the 3rd respondent in the enquiry.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ M. GANGA RAO, J.
Date: 04.11.2022 BSM 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.30221 of 2021 04-11-2022 BSM