IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19823 of 2014 BETWEEN Mohammed Ghouse Khan.
AND ... PETITIONER State of Telangana, Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. MEHDI HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has filed a complaint dated 13.02.2014 in Case No.C3/905 of 2014 before the Collector alleging that the caste certificate obtained by respondent No.7 herein is required to be verified with regard to its genuineness. Various allegations are made in the complaint regarding which Cr.No.141 of 2013 also appears to have been registered on the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Nizambad and stated to be pending before respondent No.8 i.e.
Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizambad P.S., Nizambad. Alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.4, Collector, in taking action on the said complaint, present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has received instructions, which state that on receipt of petition of the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Nizamabad, was requested to send the original file and the said file having been received in the Collectorate, as per Section 5(1) of the A.P. (S.C., S.T. & B.Cs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 the case is referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Nizambad to cause enquiry into the matter. It is further stated that the District Level Scrutiny Committee issued notice for hearing on 31.08.2014 on which date the petitioner appeared before the said committee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that no proceedings took place on that day and enquiry is adjourned.
5. However, in view of the fact that the Collector has already acted on the complaint of the petitioner and that the District Level Scrutiny Committee is seized of the matter relating to the enquiry, no further orders are warranted in this writ petition. Respondent No.4, Collector, however, shall ensure that the District Level Scrutiny Committee conducts enquiry in accordance with law expeditiously and then take appropriate decision in the matter.
The writ petition is disposed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 5, 2014 DSK