Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Smt. B. Manjula vs District Collector, Civil Supplies, ... on 26 November, 2014
Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, would contend that the first respondent has not
independently considered all the evidence available on record, but
he reiterated the findings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee
and findings of the District Collector, which are contrary to the
evidence available on record. The petitioner was given community
certificate in the year 1977 by the competent authority, after due
enquiry. The order of cancellation of petitioner's community
certificate is passed without taking into consideration the report of
the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted on 31.10.2000, Transfer
Certificate of the petitioner dated 16.07.1980 and also voters list of
1980, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner
belongs to konda kapu (ST) category, but the Collector strangely
relied on the photostat copies of birth and death certificates of
kapu community people whose surname is 'Tade'. But, the
Collector has not given any cogent reasons for not considering the
extract of the voters list, Transfer Certificate and evidence of the
petitioner's father and his father-in-law as they belong to konda
5 MGR, J
W.P.No.17667 of 2004
kapu (ST) community. He would further contend that the Collector
repeatedly got enquired into the matter through the Mandal
Revenue Officer until they reported that the petitioner is not
belongs to konda kapu community and belongs to kapu
community only by referring to the invalid evidence procured by
Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer stating
that the genealogy of petitioner's family in relation to marital
status of maternal side reveals that they belong to kapu
community. But, as per Rule 5(B) of Act 16 of 1993, they have to
collect customs of konda kapu community people residing in that
area, anthropology of the community and thereafter, they could
find out the surnames. The respondent authorities have not
conducted enquiry comprehensively in that direction to meet the
requirements of law and they conducted a farce of enquiry. The
District Level Scrutiny Committee has not conducted any
independent, proper enquiry and nobody was examined in the
enquiry. He relied on the decision of this Court in B.Manjula Vs.
District Collector, Civil Supplies, Kurnool and others1, wherein
it is held that the enquiry should be conducted by giving full
opportunity to aggrieved person which means examination and
cross examination of witness and consideration of the legally
admissible evidence. He further submits that even conduct of
successive enquiries against the petitioner in the absence of any
fraud in obtaining his social status certificate konda kapu (ST)
certificate is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Another vs R.K. Ragala And Another on 31 January, 1994
In support of his contention, he placed his reliance on the decision
of Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. and
1
2015 (3) ALD 617
6 MGR, J
W.P.No.17667 of 2004
another v. R.K. Ragala and another2, wherein it is held that a
citizen is entitled to live with dignity and without being harassed
by repeated enquiries. Based on the Committee's report, the
District Collector cancelled the community certificate of the
petitioner. The first respondent, being a statutory appellate
authority, has to independently consider the entire evidence
available on record. The first respondent appellate authority was
carried away by the orders of the District Collector, which are
under appeal and also District Level Scrutiny Committee report.
The Community Certificate issued on 23.06.1977, the voters list of
1980, and also the petitioner's Transfer Certificate show that the
petitioner belongs to konda kapu (ST) community. But, these
documents are not weighed with the authorities. However,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken into consideration only the
birth and death registers of people whose surname is 'Tade'. The
authorities recording the birth and deaths are not competent to
record community of the person even if they recorded the
community or social status of the person is not conclusive proof.
However, it is weighed with the authorities and cancelled the
certificate of the petitioner.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1