Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Bokkam Ramam vs District Collector, Visakhapatnam ... on 10 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(6)ALD691
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 16-7-2001 passed in WP No. 4824 of 1995 by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed seeking to quash the impugned order RC No. 9934/1992/TW, dated 25-2-1995, whereunder the social status certificate issued in favour of the appellant herein as Scheduled Tribe has been cancelled by the 1st respondent.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that though the social status certificate was issued prior to the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act') coming into force, as per Section 21 of the Act, any certificate issued prior to the Act coming into force is deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act, as such the procedure contemplated under the Act has to be followed for cancellation of the certificate. It appears the Act came into force with effect from 16-5-1997 whereas the impugned order has been passed on 25-2-1995. According to the learned Counsel the impugned order is passed basing upon the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, wherein the purported admission of the appellant was recorded. It is contended that though before the Mandal Revenue Officer the appellant had admitted that he belongs to "Koppala Velama" caste which comes under BC 'D', but the fact that he refused to sign on the statement would categorically go to show that no such admission was made in such a situation. It is well-settled principles of law that as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted need not be proved. Furthermore, this plea was not taken before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case held thus:
"The question is whether any inquiry was conducted in this regard and opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his claim, keeping in view the principles of natural justice. Admittedly a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner and he submitted representations twice and it is seen from the proceedings that the petitioner himself gave a statement before the first respondent to the effect that he did not belong to 'Yanadula' caste; he belonged to 'Koppula velama' caste and that he produced 'Yanadula' caste certificate on the advice of some other persons to get employment in LIC. In view of this categorical submission, even though the petitioner resiled from his earlier statement mat he did not give such a statement before the first respondent, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the matter may be remanded to the first respondent for fresh inquiry stating that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with as the copies of the documents requested by him have not been furnished. It is a bald and vague statement that is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also in the explanation. It is submitted that when the documents are sought to be furnished it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to explain the relevancy of the documents. In the absence of such relevancy, rejecting to furnish the copies of the documents cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. This contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that the details of the documents and their relevancy for the purpose of the case have not been mentioned. I am not persuaded to accept this contention, inasmuch as there is compliance of principles of natural justice and also Section 5 of the Act.
Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed."
3. The Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri, , has categorically held that when once the social status certificate is cancelled, the consequence arising out of the same shall automatically ensue, and no further opportunity of hearing is necessary. The impugned order cannot also be said to be illegal or in violation of the principles of natural justice in view of Section 11 of the Act which reads thus:
"11. Benefits secured on the basis of false Community Certificate to be withdrawn :--(1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such castes, tribes or classes or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other company or corporation owned or controlled by the Government or in any aided institution against a post reserved for such castes, tribes or classes or enjoys any other benefit intended exclusively for such castes, tribes or classes, by producing a false Community Certificate, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution or as the case may be, discharged from the said service forthwith and any other benefit enjoyed by him as aforementioned shall be withdrawn forthwith.
(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
(3) Any decree, diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a false community certificate shall also stand cancelled on cancellation of the community certificate obtained by him.
(4) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes secures any benefit reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes other than those mentioned in Section 12 by producing a false community certificate shall on conviction be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may extend upto five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lessor term or fine."
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Apex Court decision in Director of Tribal Welfare's case (supra), we are of the opinion that the alleged non- compliance of procedure by the 1st respondent cannot be accepted inasmuch as there is due compliance of principles of natural justice as also Section 5 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.