A NAGAMANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition relates to the validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as disclosed from the affidavit filed by her in support of the writ petition, is, her parents Palaka Ramaiah and Latchamma, who are of Kondakapu caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe, hail from Masanaputti village of Burji Mandal and she was born to them on 13. 05. 1949 at Masanaputti. About three months after her birth, as her mother Lachamma expired, her father who was upset failed to take care of her and left her to herself, and so, Allada jagannadham, who took care of her shifted her to Parvathipuram and admitted her in R. C. M. School, Parvathipuram, and got his name recorded as her father, and gave his caste as her caste, without knowing that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. After she studied Second Standard, her natural father took her back to Masanaputti Village, her native place. But Allada Jagannadham, out of love and affection towards her used to come to Masanaputti Village to enquire about her welfare, and so she, with his cooperation, passed Matriculation examination in 1967, and so, the name of her father is shown as Jagannadham and his caste as her caste. Having come to know of that fact subsequently, she approached the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, and informed him with regard to the events that took place earlier in her life and applied for a caste certificate, whereupon the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, deputed the Mandal Revenue Inspector and got enquiries made at Masanaputti Village and basing on the report submitted by the then Mandal Revenue Inspector, the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, issued a Caste certificate that she belongs to Mannadora Community, though she belongs to Konda dora Community. Later, she was selected and appointed as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam district. Subsequently, as her husband, who begot three daughters and two sons through her, was ill-treating her, she chose to stay separately from him and filed a case for maintenance against him in the Magistrate Court, wherein the court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to her. So, her husband, bearing a grudge against her, gave a complaint alleging that she procured the job by producing a false certificate relating to her caste. So, the Revenue divisional Officer, Srikakulam, basing on that complaint cancelled her caste certificate, and lodged a criminal case against her. Questioning the cancellation of the caste certificate, she filed W. P. No. 4449 of 1988, which was disposed on 06. 02. 1997 with a direction to her to prefer an appeal before the collector, Srikakulam. As she was convicted by the Criminal Court, she preferred an appeal questioning the said conviction, which was allowed and the case was remitted to the trial court with some directions. Thereafter, she was acquitted by the trial court. In connection with the appeal preferred by her to the Collector as per the orders in W. P. No. 4449 of 1988, the District Tribal welfare Officer visited Masanaputti Village and recorded the statements of Konda gorri Sinkiah, Palaka Latchumu, Nimmaka Karuvaiah, Palaka Jammalu, who seem to have stated that she is the daughter of Palaka Ramaiah and Latchamma and belongs to Konda Dora Community. As Allada Jagannadharao, who fostered her, is no more, his wife Allada Chittamma was examined by the authorities at Parlakamidi, and though she seems to have stated that she is not her daughter, the District collector, Srikakulam, (2nd respondent) without considering those statements and the observations in the appeal preferred by her questioning her conviction by the Criminal Court, cancelled her caste certificate. Questioning the said order, she preferred an appeal to the Government (1st respondent ). As the same was dismissed on untenable grounds, when she filed a revision, she was informed that no revision is maintainable, she filed this petition as the 1st and 2nd respondents without properly appreciating her case passed orders adverse to her interest.

(3.) 2nd respondent filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 inter alia stating that the petitioner who claims to be of Konda Dora community in her affidavit, had obtained a caste certificate that she belongs to manne Dora Community, which fact itself establishes that she obtained a false certificate relating to her caste. As the husband of the petitioner gave a complaint that the petitioner who belongs to Telaga Caste, which is a Forward caste Community, obtained a false certificate as belonging to Manna Dora community and secured a job in the office of the Superintending ending Engineer, vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja and Revenue divisional Officer, Srikakulam, to whom the case was referred for investigation, had after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report that the petitioner belongs to Telaga Caste, but not tomanna Dora Community, and so, the Revenue Divisional officer, Srikakulam was instructed to take action to cancel the certificate of scheduled Tribe Community issued to the petitioner as Manna Dora vide proceedings dated 20. 12. 1987. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, after enquiry, came to a conclusion that no Manna Dora or any other Tribal caste people are living in Uppinivalasa Village of Burja Mandal, cancelled the certificate issued to her on 12. 08. 1989 and issued a Gazettee Notification on 16. 08. 1988 cancelling her caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, palakonda to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed W. P. No. 4449 of 1998, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal within two months from the date of receipt of that order, and with a direction to dispose of the same within three months thereafter in accordance with law. After the petitioner submitted an appeal on 05. 03. 1997 as per Rule 9 (1) of the andhra Pradesh (SC/st/bcs) issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth certificate Rules, 1997 (Rules), the same was referred to the Chairman, District level Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of that Committee issued notice in Form-VI to the petitioner to attend an enquiry before the Committee on 24. 04. 1999 and to furnish documentary evidence in support of her claim. Petitioner attended before the Committee on 24. 04. 1999 and stated that the then Tahsildar, palakonda, issued caste certificate in 1997 that she belongs to Manna Dora community, but did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her case. So, the Joint Collector and Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee requested the members of the Committee and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam and mandal Revenue Officer, Burja to conduct fresh enquiry in the village and send report on the caste of the petitioner. The Joint Director, District Backward class Welfare Officer, Deputy Director (Social Welfare), Additional superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue officer, Burja, reported that the petitioner belongs to Telaga Caste, but not manna Dora Community. After perusing the entire records and reports, the committee opined that inasmuch as the petitioner did not produce any proof in support of her application that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, there are no grounds to declare that she belongs to Manna Dora Community, and recommended for cancellation of the caste certificate issued to her as belonging to Manna dora. Basing on the report submitted by the Committee and in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 5 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (SC/st/bcs) Regulation to issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (the Act) the request of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate as Scheduled Tribe was rejected and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, dated 12. 08. 1988 cancelling the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to the petitioner was confirmed by the proceedings dated 14. 10. 1999. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the 1st respondent. After knowing that some benefits are being extended to people belonging to Schedule Tribe Community, petitioner applied for a caste certificate and obtained the same by misleading and misrepresenting facts to the then Tahsildar, Palakonda, and managed to obtain a caste certificate that she belongs to Manna Dora, though she herself is claiming that she belongs to Konda Dora Community. Inasmuch as the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled only after following the procedure prescribed and after due verification, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.