GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. R K RAGALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9275/87, quashing the proceedings issued by the 2nd appellant, dated 26-3-1989.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein questioning the show cause notice dated 26-3-1989 issued by the 2nd appellant -- District Collector, East Godavari, calling upon the first respondent-petitioner to show cause as to why the status certificate issued in his favour declaring him at 'Konda Kapu' should not be cancelled and why he should not be declared as 'kapu' or 'telaga', as illegal and arbitrary, predetermined and biased. The contention of the first respondent was that the social status certificates were issued in his favour to the effect that he is konda kapu, which is a scheduled tribe after enquiries, and that at least two such enquiries were held by the concerned revenue authorities, as well as the Inspector-General of Police, CID, Hyderabad, in the years 1956, 1957 and 1988 and that the impugned proceedings amount to harassment, issued at the instance of the first appellant-Government of A.P., which had already come to the conclusion that he is not a konda kapu and that repeated enquiries should not be permitted to be held. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the social status certificates were issued in favour of the first respondent after holding proper enquiries and that there was no warrant for holding repeated enquiries, after the revenue and police officials had already made enquiries and held that the first respondent is a konda kapu and allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 26-3-1989. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Collector, East Godavari District, have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The first submission of the learned Government Pleader for the appellants is that the writ petition questioning the show cause notice is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the learned Judge should not have quashed the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that the question for determination of status social of a person is a question of fact and has to be enquired by competent authority, namely, the District Collector, and that it is not open to the Court to give a finding with regard to the social status of a person and that it was open to the first respondent to participate in the enquiry and to satisfy the competent authority, by proving his social status. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader is that even if there were earlier enquiries, it was always open to the competent authority to make further enquiries when a doubt is entertained and that there was no bar for holding such an enquiry. The last submission of the learned Government Pleader is that the learned single Judge was in error in declaring the social status of the first respondent, which is within the purview of the prescribed authority.