Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner belongs to Jatapu tribe, which is including in the list of Scheduled Tribes (STs). The election to the 8 Naguru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency was held on 11-9-1999. It is a reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribes. In the said election, the petitioner and the first respondent contested as Telugu Desam Parry (TDP) and Congress-I Party candidates. The Respondents 2 to 4 contested from other parties. The first respondent was declared elected on 6-10-1999. He does not belong to any of the Scheduled Tribes mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1976 relating to Andhra Pradesh. He belongs to 'Kshatriya' caste. He is claiming as 'Kondaraju' and obtained false certificate of social status as 'Konda Dora' claiming that 'Kondaraju' and 'Konda Dora' are synonymous. The records pertaining to the family of the first respondent reveal that they belong to "Kshatriya" caste, but not to Scheduled Tribe. With the help of the judgment of the High Court in E.P.No. 13 of 1983 he obtained a certificate of social status as Scheduled Tribe and is getting elected to Lok Sabha as well as Legislative Assembly. The petitioner came to know that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No. 7725/CV2/99 dated 10-6-1999 directing the Collector, Vizianagaram to initiate action against the first respondent in respect of the certificate of social status and it is pending enquiry. Since the first respondent does not belong to any of the Tribes specified in the Schedule under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, he is not entitled to be a candidate from 8 Naguru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency and his nomination was improperly accepted. The Courts have no power to declare a synonymous of a Tribe to be of a Tribe, which is not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 by the President of India. The judgment of this Court in E.P.No. 13 of 1983 is null and void and cannot be looked into. The first respondent cannot be allowed to obtain a certificate of social status basing on a void judgment. The first respondent played fraud on the Constitution of India and deceived the voters of 8 Naguru (ST) Constituency knowing fully well that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. He gave an impression to the people that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and propagated to that effect. He is playing this game since 20 years and was duping the voters of 8 Naguru (ST) Assembly and Parvathipuram Parliamentary Constituencies. The first respondent by deception got his name accepted by the third respondent and succeeded in the election. Hence the petition.

Caste synonymous to Konda Dora Tribe:

86. The caste 'Konda Raju' cannot be equated to the Tribe 'Konda Dora'. The legal position on this aspect is very clear.

87. In Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, , the Supreme Court held that the entries in the Presidential Order have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and admissibility of evidence is confined to showing what an entry in the Presidential Order is intended to mean. It is not open to the Court to make any addition or subtraction from the Presidential Order.

88. In Pankaj Kumar Saha v. Sub-Divisional Officer, , the Supreme Court held that the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonymous to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Courts would only look into the notification issued by the President to see whether the name finds place in the notification? In the absence of any caste in the Presidential notification the certificate issued to such person is clearly unconstitutional and a fraud on the Constitution and such person cannot be considered to belong to Scheduled Caste.