Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.N. Tirumala Raju, vs Dept. Of Social Welf., Rep. By Its Prl. ... on 11 March, 2020
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.433 of 2009
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the 1st respondent-State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.234 Social Welfare (C.V.1) Department dated 20.12.2008, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). The District Collector, on the basis of the letter received from the Commissioner, Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, initiated enquiry under the Act and after submission of the report by the District Level Scrutiny Committee, passed an order, vide proceedings Rc.MC3/232/2001 dated 31.12.2006, cancelling Chalavada (SC) caste certificate dated 15.01.1986 issued to the petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapur. Against the said order of cancellation, the petitioner filed statutory appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act on 19.01.2007. The following are the grounds of appeal in the said appeal:
"i. The 1st respondent who is the competent authority has to adjudicate the dispute relating to the community of the appellant basing on the evidence on record. But, the 1st respondent just extracted the findings of the 2nd respondent and issued the impugned order cancelling the caste certificate issued to the appellant. Hence, there is non-application of mind.
ii. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent as well as the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee reliance has been made on the report of the R.D.O., Ananthapur in his letter Rc.No.C/3345/2001, dated 18.11.2004, the report of the Mandal Revenue 2 Officer, Madakasira in Rc.No.68/06/C, dated 12.05.2006, the copies of which are not furnished to the appellant nor the contents thereof are made known to him. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent basing on the said report is violative of the principles of natural justice for non-furnishing the material relied on by the authority.
iii. Neither the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee nor the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent reflect the consideration of the documentary evidence produced by the appellant namely the certificates issued by various educational authorities and the sworn affidavits of the residents of Pavugada Taluk in Karnataka State.
iv. The observation of the 1st respondent that the Mandal Revenue Officer was not competent to issue Chaluvadi Schedule Caste Certificate under G.O.Ms.No.204 Social Welfare (J) Department, dated 23.1.1985 and that it has to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and as such, the caste certificate dated 15.1.1986 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapur needs cancellation is totally misconceived. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No.289 Social Welfare (J2) Department dated 28.11.1986, wherein a reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.122 Social Welfare Department, dated 6.6.1986 stating that in respect of schedule caste listed therein only Revenue Officer, not below the RDO, Sub-Collector is competent to issue the caste certificate, at Sl.No.9, Chaluvadi is included. A reference is also made to G.O.Ms.No.880, dated 17.10.1975 and G.O.Ms.No.262 Social Welfare Department dated 10.12.1985 all Gazetted Officers of the State Government and Mandal Revenue Officers irrespective of a cadre shall be competent to issue certificates in favour of S.Cs. S.Ts. and B.Cs. for the purpose of appointment of services as well as admission 3 into educational institutions. The appellant was issued a caste certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer, on 21.8.1985. The Subsequent certificate was also issued on 15.1.1986. On both the dates, the Mandal Revenue Officer was competent to issue a caste certificate.
vii. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is a non-speaking order except narrating the contents of various reports, there is absolutely no consideration on merits and the same is not sustainable.
viii. The observation of the 1st respondent that the Chaluvadi Nayak Community which is recognized as Schedule Tribe in Karnataka State is similar to habitants of Boya Caste is totally misconceived and not based on any material.
ix. The respondents failed to consider that the Tahsildar, Pavugada Taluk himself submitted a report on the request of the M.R.O., Ananthapur that the mother of the appellant belong to Chaluvada Nayak community which is recognized as Schedule Tribe and the community of his father was not known. On that basis, no inference can be drawn that the father of the appellant did not belong to Chaluvada community.
x. Such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing."
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein also filed written arguments on 16.06.2008 in the said appeal. Eventually, the State Government, vide the impugned government order dated 20.12.2008, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and upheld the orders of the District Collector, Ananthapur, dated 31.12.2006. 4
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, the orders impugned in the present Writ Petition are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned orders are also violative of principles of natural justice, as the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 18.11.2004 and 12.05.2006 were not furnished to the petitioner.
4. A perusal of the memorandum of grounds of appeal clearly discloses that the petitioner herein urged a number of grounds in the said memorandum of grounds filed before the 1st respondent-appellate authority. It is also very much evident from the material available on record that on 16.06.2008, written arguments were also filed before the 1st respondent. A reading of the order passed by the State Government- 1st respondent herein discloses, in clear and vivid terms, that the said grounds raised by the appellant-petitioner herein were not considered by the 1st respondent-State Government nor the 1st respondent considered the written argument filed by the petitioner herein.
5. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act confers power on the State Government to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the District Collector, which is a substantive right and the same is required to be exercised with utmost care and caution in view of the involvement of the substantial rights of the parties. Being a quasi-judicial authority, the 1st respondent herein is also obligated to consider the entire material available on record with utmost care, caution and circumspection and 5 thorough verification of the issues raised by the appellant is required to be undertaken by the appellate authorities. Being the quasi-judicial authority, the 1st respondent is obligated to assign cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusions. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the instant case, the 1st respondent adhered to the same in breach. Non-consideration of the grounds of appeal and the written arguments filed by the petitioner herein is fatal to the case of the respondents.
6. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue requires re-consideration by the 1st respondent- State Government after taking into the account the entire material available on record.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.234 Social Welfare (C.V.1) Department dated 20.12.2008 and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent and consequently, the appeal stands restored to file for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after considering the material available on record and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the interim arrangement made by this Court pending disposal of the Writ Petition shall continue to remain in force pending appeal. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 11.03.2020 siva 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.433 of 2009 Date: 11.03.2020 siva