Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application to be ordered and accordingly the same is hereby ordered. However, the question how far the said report may be looked into would be discussed at the appropriate stage.

Pleadings in brief: The pleadings of the parties in brief are as hereunder-

5. The writ petitioners pleaded that the 1st petitioner-Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1981 with Registration No. 99/81 and the main objects of the said Society among others are to promote the welfare, provide for education, protect the rights, to work for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes among other Castes in weaker sections of the Society. It is also averred that the other petitioners are the residents and voters of the said Bapatla Municipality hailing from various wards including Ward No. 8. It is also further stated that the 1st respondent exercising powers under Section 23 of A.P. Municipalities Act, r/w Rules 3 and 12 of A.P. Municipalities (Reservation of Offices of Chairperson in Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 1995 issued notification thereby specifying the Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Castes and Women for election to the offices of Chairpersons of the said Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats vide G.O.Ms.No. 759 dated 18-8-2005. By the said notification among others, the Bapatla Municipal Council was reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. The said reservations were made pursuant to the Constitutional mandate provided under Article 243-T of the Constitution of India. It is also further stated that exercising the powers under Articles 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India, the 2nd respondent herein, the State Election Commission issued notification dated 29-8-2005 notifying the election to the Bapatla Municipal Council and published the programme for the said elections. The polling for election to the wards was fixed as 24-9-2005. The 9th respondent who belongs to the 8th Ward filed nomination for the election as a member of the Council claiming himself as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste by describing his caste as Mala which is one of the castes specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India. Three other candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste also filed nomination for the said 8th Ward. The 9th respondent got elected as a Councillor in the said election held on 24-9-2005. It is also stated that thereafter he obtained nomination from Indian National Congress as its party nominee for the office of the Chairperson of the Bapatla Municipal Council and also got elected as the Chairperson on 30-9-2005. Further a stand is taken that the 1st petitioner Association came to know that the 9th respondent belongs to B.C. 'C category as he was Mala converted to Christianity and for past two generations his family was professing Christianity and on the said basis he obtained employment in the then A.P. State Electricity Board (Presently Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited) and after obtaining several benefits for himself in and outside the service claiming to belong to Backward Class (Category-C) retired on 31st (sic. 30th) June, 2003. It is also averred that the petitioners gathered the service particulars of the 9th respondent and documents, namely, (i) Xerox copy of service roll of the 9th respondent and (ii) Seniority list of Assistant Linemen of Tenali Division of the said Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited showing the name of the 9th respondent at SI.No. 9. These documents clearly disclose that the 9th respondent is a Mala converted to Christianity and that he belongs to Backward Class (Category-C) respectively and thus confirming that the 9th respondent belonged to Backward Class (C-Category). It is further stated that the petitioners made further enquiries and found that in August, 2005 the 9th respondent obtained caste certificate from Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla, the 8th respondent, representing that he belongs to Mala which is a caste specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued under Clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution suppressing the above said factum that he belongs to Backward Class (Category-C). The 1st petitioner-Association submitted a representation dated 22-3-2006 to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur narrating the said facts. On 14-4-2006 on the occasion of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanthi the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted representations to several authorities requesting them to initiate action against the 9th respondent and to uphold the Constitutional objects for which the offices of local Self-Government are reserved for weaker sections. The said fact was widely reported in the local newspapers and all the local T.V. and cable channels. Further it is stated that another Association from Guntur, the Removal of State Communal Untouchability Struggle Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, also had called for the removal of 9th respondent as he had usurped the said offices by playing fraud on 16-4-2006 and the said fact also was widely reported in the local newspapers. It is also further averred that on 27-4-2006 majority of the members of Bapatla Municipal Council had submitted written representation to the Commissioner, Bapatla Municipality, the 6th respondent herein, refusing to attend the meeting scheduled for that day on the ground that Municipal Council cannot function under the said 9th respondent as Chairperson as he had usurped the office by fraud and also requested to record the same in the minutes of the meeting and communicate the same to higher authorities for necessary action. Thereafter the 9th respondent had used the services of third party individuals with criminal background, who entered the meeting hall and abused orally and physically the said members who submitted the said representation. These incidents had been recorded and shown in the local Citi cable news channel and the photographs had also been published in the local newspapers. It is further stated that requesting criminal action against the said incidents a representation dated 3-5-2006 was submitted by the said members to the 6th respondent marking copies to the 3rd and 4th respondents and no action had been taken in this regard. In the circumstances the said members lodged a complaint with the local police and even on this there was no action. Further it is stated that the members belonging to all the political parties also had organized rastha roko and the same also was widely reported. The 1st petitioner-Association had submitted a representation on 17-4-2006 to the A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with respect to the said action of the 9th respondent and the Commission in turn by its proceedings dated 19-4-2006 forwarded the same to the 4th respondent herein, the District Collector, for necessary action. Further it is averred that on 18-4-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted a representation to the 4th respondent nomenclating the same as a complaint under Section 5 r/w. Section 12 of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act (Act No. 16 of 1993) with respect to the said act of the 9th respondent, but it is reliably learnt that till date no action had been initiated by the 4th respondent either on the representation dated 18-4-2006 of the 1st petitioner nor on the proceedings of the said A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted an application on 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005) to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 8th respondent herein seeking for copies of (i) Application made by the 9th respondent in the month of August 2005 for issuing a caste certificate describing as person belonging to Scheduled Caste; (ii) Documents enclosed to the said application for substantiating his claim as Scheduled Caste; (iii) Previous certificate if any issued to the 9th respondent and (iv) Caste certificate issued to the 9th respondent pursuant to the said application made in the month of August 2005. It is also further averred that upon receipt of the said application the 8th respondent knowing fully well from the local news papers and the electronic media that the said copies had been sought for a larger public interest and that the said larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought still taking shelter under Section 8(j) and 11(1) of the Act No. 22 of 2005, refused to issue the said copies by proceedings dated 3-5-2006. From a perusal of the said proceedings it is also evident that the 8th respondent issued a notice to the 9th respondent on the said application and received and considered his objections. Further it is averred that aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 8th respondent dated 3-5-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association filed an appeal under Section 19 of Act No. 22 of 2005 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 7th respondent herein, on 10-5-2006. It is further stated that in the first week of May itself, the complaint dated 18-4-2006 lodged by the 1st petitioner with the 4th respondent under Act No. 16 of 1993 has reached the 7th respondent and he is aware of the entire issue. In spite of the same, the 7th respondent instead of calling for the entire file from the 8th respondent and issue the copies as applied for, issued proceedings dated 11-5-2006, signed after 16-5-2006, thereby directing the 1st petitioner to submit the copy of the proceedings of the 8th respondent dated 3-5-2006 against which the Appeal had been filed. Though the 1st petitioner immediately submitted the said copy, till date no action had been taken by the 7th respondent. It is further averred that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted another application dated 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality seeking for copies of (i) documents submitted by the 9th respondent at the time of the nomination in the month of September 2005 and (ii) Caste certificate filed by the 9th respondent at the time of filing of nomination. Further it is stated that the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality by proceedings dated 1 -5-2006 informed the 1st petitioner-Associated that on 18-4-2006 itself he had sought the permission of the Director of Municipal Administration, the 3rd respondent herein, for issuing the said copies and that he is awaiting the same for issuing the copies. Thereafter on verification by the 1st petitioner with the office of the 3rd respondent it came to be known that no such letter was addressed seeking the permission. Thereupon the 1st petitioner-Association brought to their notice about the letter dated 1-5-2006 of the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of the Bapatla Municipality and consequently the office of the 3rd respondent called for the letter dated 18-4-2006 from the said Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of the Bapatla Municipality by which he had sought the permission to issue the copies applied for and in turn addressed letter to the 3rd respondent seeking its permission for issuing the said copies, but no action was taken in this regard till date. It is also further stated that the 1st petitioner also submitted an application 19-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005) to the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur seeking among other details the service particulars of the 9th respondent with respect to (a) Educational qualifications as on the date of joining the service and (b) Caste and community marked in the service register. It is stated that consequent to the said application the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur knowing fully well from the local news papers and the electronic media that the said copies had been sought for a larger pubic interest and that the said larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought and the issuing of the copies sought still taking shelter under Sections 8(j) and 11(1) of the Act No. 22 of 2005 refused to issue the said copies by the proceedings dated 9-5-2006. From a perusal of the said proceedings it is evident that a notice was also issued to the 9th respondent on the said application and received his objections and considered the same. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Public Information Officer-cum-the Divisional Electrical Engineer Technical, APSPDCL, Guntur dated 9-5-2006 the 1st petitioner-Association filed an appeal under Section 19 of Act No. 22 of 2005 to the Superintending Engineer of APSPDCL on 23-5-2006. The said Appeal was also disposed of by proceedings dated 16-6-2006 thereby refusing to issue the copies by upholding the reasons given by the original authority. From the above said facts it is evident that though all the officials are fully aware of the larger public interest involved in issuing the said copies under the said Act No. 22 of 2005 still the original and the appellate authorities thereunder had been refusing to issue them taking shelter under Sections 8(j) and 11(1) though the very same provisions provide for issuing the said copies to justify the larger public interest and there can be no larger public interest than protecting the Constitution from fraud in question. In fact this conduct of all these authorities is legally mala fide action. Certain other factual details also had been narrated and the relief of quo warranto was prayed for inasmuch as it is stated that the 9th respondent had played fraud on the Constitution by occupying the respective offices to which he has no right to occupy at all.

The meeting was convened with a quorum of 20 members. Since the 1/3rd quorum is completed the meeting is scheduled and completed without any obstacles as stated by the petitioner. Immediately after the closure of the meeting the matter was reported to the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration Department, Guntur and District Collector, Guntur. Specific stand is taken in para 10 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner-Association submitted an application on 18-4-2006 under Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality requesting for issue of copies of documents submitted by 9th respondent at the time of nomination in the months of September, 2005 including caste certificate. It is further averred in para 11 that the P.I.O./Office Manager, Bapatla Municipality issued endorsement dated 1-5-2006 to the 1st petitioner duly informing that the plea of the petitioner is referred to the competent higher authorities for issuing necessary clarification through i-r.Roc.No. 3652/2005/C1 dated 18-4-2006 since there is no provision to open the nomination and other election related papers kept under safe custody of sub-treasury officer, Bapatla under Rule 96(1)(B) unless there is an order of competent Court to do so. The 1st petitioner was also informed that the required information will be given to him as and when permission was received from higher authority. The 1st petitioner had not approached the officer by way of Appeal before the appellate authority in this regard. The request of the petitioner was referred to the State Election Commission, Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad seeking necessary permission. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration through the instructions R.O.C.No. 7683/2006/ Elec-2, dated 30-6-2006 had directed the Municipal Commissioner to give an endorsement to the General Secretary of Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajam, Bapatla duty quoting the rule position. The State Election Commission, Secunderabad through Lr.No. 310/SEC/F2/2006 dated 17-8-2006 had informed that "The information contained in the declaration was intended to the electors to judge antecedents, financial status and educational qualifications of candidates so that they may choose desirable candidates and that stage had passed. At this stage only personal information has no relationship to any public activity. Therefore there is no obligation to supply this information to the applicant. The information in the declaration cannot be used for collateral purposes by private parties. However if an appeal is filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the appellate authority orders giving of the copy of declaration then they have a fresh look at the matter and that in case the appellate authority want us to supply the information, we may supply the same under the said authority, if we so decide". Further it is stated that there is malaise intention as stated by the petitioners except with an intention not to deviate the rules clearly by election related matters. After completion of the election process all the important papers pertaining to this election had been kept in a seal and secured safe custody. It is further averred that while submitting the nomination papers to contest to Ward No. 8 of Bapatla Municipality the 9th respondent enclosed caste certificate dated 17-8-2005 as he belongs to S.C. (Mala) issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla since Ward No. 8 is reserved for S.C. (General). The election process was successfully completed as per the directions of the State and District election authorities without giving any room for complaints. The particulars of all the contesting candidates had been displayed in the notice board before commencement of poll date. No objections were received in the matter before and after declaration of the election results. Even on the date of scrutiny of nomination i.e., 6-9-2005 no objection is received against the candidature of Sri K. Mariyadas. His nomination was accepted basing on the strength of caste certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla and other certificates produced by the individual. No election petition was filed in any of the Courts within a period of 15 days after declaration of election results. The present Writ Petition is filed with malaise intention. The petitioners have made this representation with a malaise intention and to create unnecessary hurdles in administration. Further specific stand is taken that instead of approaching the Election Tribunal questioning the election, the petitioners had approached this Court and hence prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. The 7th respondent filed counter affidavit taking a stand that it is not true to allege that the 4th respondent-District Collector, Guntur had not taken any action on the petition dated 18-4-2006. The District Collector, Guntur had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali 7th respondent to enquire into the matter and send a detailed report. Accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer-7th respondent had enquired into the matter and submitted report to the District Collector. Further specific stand is taken that it is not true to say that the 1S| petitioner had filed before the 7th respondent a copy of letter dated 3-5-2006 said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla to him. The fact is that the petitioner M. Jaya Rao filed an appeal petition against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla dated 3-5-2006 without enclosing the order under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The appellant was given an endorsement to file a copy of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla but it was not filed by the petitioner. It is further stated that suitable action will be taken on the appeal petition filed by the petitioner soon after he filed a copy of letter/order said to have been issued to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla. The mala fide intention alleged had been denied. The allegations in para-33 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition also had been denied, but it is averred that in fact the 7th respondent requested the petitioner to file a copy of the letter dated 3-5-2006 said to have been issued to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapatla for taking further action on his appeal petition. but he had not filed the above document before the 7th respondent so far.

Sri Kurapati Mariyadasu and his family ordinarily resides in Village/Town Bapatla of Guntur District/Division of the State of Andhra Pradesh of India.
Signature Designation Mandal Revenue Officer Office seal Mandal Revenue Office, Bapatla Dated : 3-5-2006 Special Register No. ll/2006/C To Sri M. Jaya Rao, General Secretary, Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajam, Bapatla.
With reference to your request under Section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005 for providing information as to the Caste status of Sri Kurapati Mariyadas, Chairman, Bapatla Municipality and granting of a certified copy of the Caste Certificate issued to him during August 2005, it is hereby informed that the said K. Mariyadas, when issued a notice under Section 11(1) of the Act, filed written reply against disclosure of the said information.