Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Polam Veerabhadra Rao vs The Government Of A.P. And Others on 22 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP308, 1996(2)ALT327, AIR 1996 ANDHRA PRADESH 308, (1996) 1 APLJ 414, (1996) 2 ANDH LT 327, (1996) 1 LS 208
ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 15-11-1995 in Ref. (B2) 1047/92 issued by the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 4-12-1995 in connection with the social status claim of the petitioner and also to file necessary explanation in that behalf.
2. This Court while directing notice before admission, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice, by an order dated 4-12-1995. However, when the matter came up today for extension of further time granted by this Court on 4-12-1995, this Court felt that the matter could be disposed of as the writ petition is directed only against a show cause notice.
3. Sri Nalin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner primarily contended that the petitioner was subjected to enquiries on earlier occasion also by the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) and a detailed report was also prepared by the said department. It is alleged that in cases of social status claim, there cannot be numerous enquiries as it would cause hardship to the petitioner. It is further stated that a Division Bench of this Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. R. K. Ragala, has held that several enquiries in respect of social status claim of a person are not warranted. Therefore, it is urged that in view of this decision, the show-cause notice issued by the third respondent is not tenable.
4. Prima facie, I am of the, new the decision cited by the counsel for the pe(itioner has no application to the facts of the present case in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil v- Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, and in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A. P. v. Laveti Giri, . In these decisions, the Supreme Court has categorically held that as long as the social status claim of a person is disputed, it is for him to prove and establish that he belongs to a particular community as claimed by him, Any enquiry by unconcerned department is not binding on the competent authorities who issue social status certificates and conduct enquiries into these matters.
5. Having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court which have also suggested certain measures as to Ihe modalities for issuing caste certificates, I am of the view, the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner (cited) (supra)) is has relevancy at all.
6. Since the writ petition is primarily against a show-cause notice issued by the third respondent, I am of the view, a writ petition against a show-cause notice is normally not maintainable as the party has all the opportunity to place the entire material before the enquiring authorities who issues show-cause notice. Keeping this principle in view, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the petitioner that the impugned show-cause notice is liable to be quashed.
7. petition does not merit for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to file necessary explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the third respondent and also place all relevant materials before him. The third respondent shall consider the entire material and pass appropriate orders. Though the petitioner was required to appear before the third respondent on 4-12-1995 pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice, having obtained stay of all further proceedings, he did not appear and the time so fixed by the third respondent has expired. Therefore, it would be proper to permit the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 20-2-1996. It is made clear, no further notice is necessary in this behalf for the petitioner to appear before the third respondent.
8. The social status claims have become a menacing obstacle on the real beneficiaries who are conferred certain rights under the Constitution in Articles 341 and 342. It is, therefore, desired that the third respondent shall pass a final order on hearing the petitioner, preferably within a period of one month from 20-2-1996 the date on which the petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent as time is an important factor in these matters.
9. Petition dismissed.