Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kothapalli Gladya Jacob vs Commissioner Of Tribal Welfare, ... on 13 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD163
Author: I. Venkatanarayana
Bench: I. Venkatanarayana
ORDER
1. The petitioner is questioning the proceedings No. B-2.12038/92 dated 30-10-1993 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the social status certificate of the petitioner issued by the revenue authorities during 1984 to 1991.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of this Writ Petition is set out as hereunder:- The petitioner belongs to 'Valmiki' Tribe and the genealogical table of her family for the last four generations would disclose that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. The entire scholastic record right from 1976 to 1990 would show that she belongs to 'Valmiki' caste. The then Tahsildar, Yellavaram and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala have issued certificates on 17-4-1984, 30-1-1990, 1-12-1990 and 20-7-1991 after detailed enquiry to the effect that the petitioner belongs to 'Valmiki' Scheduled Tribe. The Valmikis of agency tracts are also variently called as 'Malas' and 'Agency Malas'. The statutory notification under the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act 1917 and subsequent notifications issued under 1935 Act confirms this factum. They were also known as 'Hills Tribes' under 1917 Act. This 'Hill Tribes' from 1917 are termed as Backward Tribes under 1935 Act. His Majesty in Council in consultation with the Privy Council notified that the Hill Tribes were also known as 'Mala' or 'Agency Malas' or 'Valmikis'. The petitioner was given certificate as 'Valmiki' by the Tribal 'Welfare Officer after due verification. The father of the petitioner was directed to produce fresh Schedule Tribe Certificate since a case has been filed against him under land Transfer Regulation Act. He submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rampa Chodavaram for issuance of a certificate to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner placed reliance on the documents from 1898 and their relationship with various Valmiki families and the certificates issued in 1985. But, a de novo enquiry was initiated by the then Revenue Divisional Officer through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala into the social status of the petitioner's father. He appears to have made discreet enquiries at Thimmapuram village of Addateegala Mandal and submitted a report to the effect that the petitioner's family is not staying at Thimmapuram and that they are staying in Amalapuram of East Godavari District. In short, in pursuance of the enquiry, the authorities came to a provisional conclusion that the petitioner is not Scheduled Tribe and that they are either 'Malas' or Indian Christians. Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to the father of the petitioner and he submitted his explanation. In his explanation it is stated that since he was in service with Revenue Department he had to move to Amalapuram and other places. It was further stated that they belong to Hill Tribe and the foreign Missionaries who came to East Godavari have converted the Valmiki Community to Christianity and that there is no bar for Scheduled Tribe to convert themselves into any religion and their identity as Scheduled Tribe remains unaffected. The school record of the petitioner indicates that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Valmiki caste. It is also submitted that Caste Certificates were issued during 1984 to 1991 after conducting a detailed enquiry and the same cannot be cancelled at a later point of time. The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector by his proceedings in Reference No. B2-12038/92, dated 30-10-1993 has cancelled the Valmiki Tribe Certificates issued to the petitioner, her brother and father. Assailing the cancellation proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents seeking to sustain the impugned proceedings mainly on the ground that a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and her father and that the authorities followed due process before cancelling the social status certificates. The counter states that the birth and death register of Thimmapuram village reveals that all the births and death registers relating to Kothapalli family states that they are 'Mala' and Christians. Mere residence long time in agency tracts does not confer any rights to claim Scheduled Tribe status. Reliance is placed on G.O. Ms. No. 282 S.W (J2) Department dated 19-12-1988 which authorizes District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate to cancel false social status certificates. Reliance is also placed on discreet enquiries conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala into the status of the Kothapalli family.
4. Taking into consideration the rival submissions, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order bearing Ref. No. B.12038/92 dated 30-10-1993 is liable to be quashed?
5. The entire offshoot of this case begins with a direction from the Special Deputy Collector, Rampa Chodavaram directing the petitioner's father and brother to file a fresh social status certificate to the effect that they belong to 'Valmiki' Scheduled Tribe. One Mr. Kolipe Nookaraju has filed LTRP No. 21 of 1990 against the petitioner's father and brother. At that juncture the Tribal Deputy Collector Rampa Chodavaram directed the father and brother of the petitioner to file a fresh social status certificate before 7-8-1992 to the effect that they belong to 'Valmiki' Scheduled Tribe. The father of the petitioner submitted an application on 18-6-1992 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, "Rampa Chodavaram for issuance of social status certificate to the effect that he belongs to 'Valmiki' caste. He placed reliance on the social status certificate issued to him on 26-1-1985 after due enquiry and in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 245 dated 30-6-1977. He has furnished the entire family details which discloses that the school records of his brother and their children were shown as 'Hindu Valmiki' and in the case of some others as 'Hill Tribe Valmiki' and in some others as 'Valmiki Christian'. In pursuance of this application dated 18-6-1992 submitted by the petitioner's father the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report and the Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings Ref. No. E/2668/1992 dated 18-51993 has held that the Valmikis of Thimmapuram were treated as 'Malas' and that the petitioner's father and their family should be treated as 'Malas' and not 'Valmikis'. The entire file relating to this case was made available to me and that the Mandal Revenue Officer in his report has traced the genealogical tree of Kothapalli family about three generations. Each of the grand father and grand uncle of the petitioner's social status has been recorded as 'Indian Christian', 'Mala' and 'Hindu Valmiki'. The certificate of the brother of the petitioner Kothapalli Vivekananda Kumar is given as 'Valmiki' and his religion is shown as 'Christian'. The school records of the petitioner and her cousin Kothapalli Appa Rao clearly indicate as 'Hindu Valmiki'. The Government Pleader for Social Welfare submits that since they practiced Christian religion they are not entitled to claim the tribal status. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me the proceedings of Home Ministry Department of Personnel OM No. 13/3/71/ Estt(SCT) dated 10-9 1971 which clearly states that "The Rights of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe are however independent of his/her religious faith.". This clearly indicates that a tribal is entitled to practice religion of his choice and yet his status and rights as a tribe remains unchanged. The mere fact that the religion of a Tribal is shown as 'Christian' or 'Sikh' does not alter his status as a tribal. Insofar as the scholastic record of the petitioner is concerned it is consistently shown as 'Hindu Valmiki'. The permanent 'A' Register of Thimmapuram village shows that the petitioner's grand father Kothapalli Appalaswamy had lands at Thimmapuram village and the entire electoral and census record shows that he is a 'Valmiki'. In fact the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala dated 20-7-1991 in favour of the petitioner to the effect that she belongs to 'Valmiki' has been issued after a detailed enquiry. The Mandal Revenue Officer endorsed on the certificate 'After conducting a detailed enquiry this certificate is issued'. Hence it is not open to the Government Pleader to state that no enquiry was conducted before issuing the certificate. It is also interesting to note that the petitioner was issued social status certificates on 17-4-1984, 30-1-1990, 1-12-1990 and 20-7-1991 and all these certificates were issued after due enquiry and in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 245 dated 30-6-1977. The concerned file bearing No. 17/1985 dated 26-1-1985 and 306/85 clearly shows that the certificates were given after due enquiry. From the Constitution and the proceedings issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs it is evident that a citizen belonging to Scheduled Tribe can profess any religion of his or her choice. Hence the religion cannot be a determining factor for determining the social status of a tribal. The Joint Collector in his detailed order dated 30-10-1993 pointed out that mere residence for a long time in the agency area does not confer any right to be a Scheduled Tribe. But the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer shows that the relative of 'Kothapalli' people Gorrela and Kambam people are Valmikies and that there is 'Thadi thota' which is named after 'Kothapalli' vari thadulu'. It is also necessary to note that insofar as the petitioner is concerned she has been consistently claimed her status as 'Valmiki' as reflected in the school records and the certificates issued from time to time by the revenue authorities. The school record of the son of the petitioner Master D. Abhinav Teja shows that he belongs to 'Valmiki' caste. The revenue authorities, having issued social status certificates as early as 1984 after due enquiry, cannot subsequently cancel the social status certificate of the petitioner on the ground that a 'de novo' enquiry was conducted against the father and brother of the petitioner.
6. Can a citizen be subjected to repeated and successive enquiries resulting in harassment and trauma in day-to-day life? The concept of 'right to life and personal liberty' has been widened and departed from the narrow interpretation of A.K. GOPALAN v. STATE OF MADRAS, . In KHARAK SINGH v. STATE OF U.P., , the Apex Court interpreted Article 21 to include the whole lot of human rights i.e., right to legal aid, right to speedy trial and right to live with dignity. In MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA, , the Supreme Court has opened and broadened the concept of life' to include personal liberty, freedom to move and the right to live with dignity. In UNNI KRISHNAN v. STATE OF A.P., , the Apex Court has held thus:
"Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. It is true, that the Article is worded in negative terms but it is now well settled that Article 21 has both negative and affirmative dimension."
7. Thus the object of Article 21 of the Constitution is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the executive except in accordance with law. The concept of 'personal liberty' is something more than the animal existence. Such right postulates that a citizen is entitled to live consistently with human dignity and decency. Given the meaning it would include all his traditions, culture and heritage.
8. The mere fact that there was a 'de novo' enquiry against the late father of the petitioner will not invalidate the social status certificates which were issued earlier after conducting enquiries in accordance with law and based on evidence produced at that point of time. A Division Bench of this court in GOVT. OF A.P. v. R.K. RAGALA, , has quashed the show cause notice itself proposing a 'de novo' enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court has held that once a social status certificate was issued after valid enquiries, further successive enquiries against the certificate holder amounts to harassment and offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Following the judgments of the Apex Court and the Division of this Court, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the enquiries concluded during 1984 to 1991 in connection with the social status of the petitioner are valid and cannot be a subject-matter of 'de novo' enquiry The impugned proceeding Ref. B2-12038/92, dated 30-10-1993 on the file of the Callectorate, Kakinada is an error apparent on the face of the record and is accordingly quashed. There shall be a declaration that the petitioner belongs to 'VALMIKI' Scheduled Tribe and she shall be entitled to all the rights and benefits that flow from that social status.
9. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.