THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.21718 OF 2009 and WRIT PETITION No.21535 of 2010 Dated 15th July, 2014 Between : Pedabaliarasimhuni Srinivas … Petitioner a n d The Collector and District Magistrate Vizianagaram & another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.21718 OF 2009 and WRIT PETITION No.21535 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
Since these two writ petitions are inter-related and the outcome of W.P.No.21718 of 2009 would decide the fate of W.P.No.21535 of 2010, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions together by way of this common order.
2) W.P.No.21718 of 2009 is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.21535 of 2010, challenging the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, issued in (M) Rc.No.482/2001/C5 dated 29.09.2009 whereas W.P.No.21535 of 2010 is filed, questioning the action of the District Collector, Vizianagaram, in not concluding proceedings against the 3rd respondent therein, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.21718 of 2009, under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, (for short ‘the Act’) and Rules, 1997 (for short ‘the Rules’). By virtue of the proceedings/notice dated 29.09.2009, the first respondent-District Collector directed the petitioner in W.P.No.21718/2009 to appear before him for enquiry on the Social Status Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Salur, in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.21718/2009. Therefore, the result in W.P.No.21718/2009 will decide the fate of W.P.No.21535/2010. In view of the said reason, this Court deems it appropriate to take up first W.P.No.21718/2009 for adjudication.
3) Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are essential for adjudication of the issue before this Court are as under:
a) Petitioner herein claims to be a person belonging to Kondadora caste, which is a scheduled Tribe community, recognized under the Constitution of India and to that effect, the Tahasildar, Salur, issued Certificate vide D.Dis.No.2146/79 dated 28.05.1979 and SR 42/93/ST dated 28.03.1993. Earlier, the Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee-cum-Joint Collector, Vizianagaram, issued a Form-VI notice in
(M) Rc.No.482/01/C5 dated 28.07.2009 to the petitioner, asking him to attend for enquiry regarding community claim on 07.08.2009.
b) Alleging inherent lack of jurisdiction to the Joint Collector, petitioner filed W.P.No.17830/2009, questioning Form-VI Notice dated 28.07.209 issued by the Joint Collector. While the matters stood thus, the District Collector, Vizianagaram, vide notice in (M) Rc.No.482/01/C5 dated 29.09.2009 directed the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry while referring to the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee dated 18.09.2009 and the Note orders dated 25.09.2009.
4) Calling in question, the validity and legal acceptability of the said notice dated 29.09.2009 issued by the District Collector, W.P.No.21718/2009 has been instituted. This Court granted interim orders initially on 13.10.2009 and later on 09.06.2011 extended the same till the disposal of the writ petition. Responding to the Rule nisi issued by this Court on 17.02.2012, a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying the averments in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5) It is pertinent to note at this juncture that W.P.No.17830/2009 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21718/2009 was disposed of as infructuous in view of the subsequent developments.
6) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21718/2009 that the impugned notice dated 29.09.2009 issued by the District Collector based on the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Law and the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further argued that the action of the authorities is violative of the principles of natural justice and Form-VI is void, non est and contrary to rule 8 of the Rules. It is further contended that the authorities did not furnish the complaint alleged to have been made by the petitioner in W.P.No.21535/2010 nor they furnished the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions reported in Bhakthavathsala Sukumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam[1] and another order of this Court passed in W.P.No.15938/2012 dated 06.06.2013.
7) Per contra, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri P.Seshibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21535/2010, that the impugned action is strictly in conformity with Act 16/93 and the Rules framed thereunder and the contentions contra advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner are neither sustainable nor tenable.
8) In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, available before this Court, now the issue which this Court is called upon to deal with is:
“whether the impugned action which culminated in the Notice dated 29.09.2009 issued by District Collector is in conformity with Act 16/93 and the Rules framed thereunder?”
9) The Legislation and the Rules framed thereunder which are germane and relevant for resolving the instant controversy are Act 16/93 and the Rules framed thereunder in the year 1997. Act 16/93 is intended to consolidate the issue of Community Certificate relating to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The object of this legislation is to curb effectively the evil practice of producing false community certificates by deriving a strict procedure for the issue of such certificates and prescribing deterrent punishment to those who produce fake certificates. Contravention of this Act also attracts penalties including imprisonment and withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of fake community certificates. Therefore, the provisions of this Legislation and the Rules framed thereunder are required to be followed and adhered to scrupulously, meticulously and strictly and any deviation from the same would not only frustrate the intention of the Legislation but also invalidates the proceedings.
10) Section 5 of the Act 16/93 read with Rules 8 and 9 of 1997 Rules deal with the procedure for cancellation of fake community certificate and fraudulent claims. Section 5 empowers the District Collector to cancel the Caste Certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation. Rule 9 authorizes the District Collector to refer the matter to Chairman, District Level Scrutiny Committee, and Joint Collector of the concerned District to send a report.
Rule 8 of the Rules reads as under:
8. Scrutiny Committee (District level) :- (a) In every District, a Scrutiny Committee shall be constituted with the following officers:-
(1) Joint Collector --- Chairman
(2) District Revenue Officer --- Member (Convener)
(3) Deputy Director --- Member (Social Welfare) Deputy Director (Tribal Welfare)/District Tribal Welfare Officer --- Member Deputy Director (Backward Classes Welfare)/ District Backward Classes --- Member
(4) Officer of the Research organization in the Commissionerate of SW/TW nominated by the concerned Heads of the Departments
(5) Officer representing the PCR/ --- Member Vigilance Cell in the District.
For resolving the dispute in the instant case, Rule 8 (d) (1) is also relevant, which stipulates as under:
8 (d) (1) The Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of the cases
referred to it by the Competent authority under Rule 5 (i), shall conduct enquiry regarding the doubtful claims, by giving notice in Form VI to the applicant, within the period specified in the notice. This period should not be less than 15 (fifteen) days from the date of service of the notice on the applicant and in no case, on request, more than 30 (thirty) days should be allowed. This notice shall be served on the applicant through the Competent Authority who referred the case to the Committee.
11) While referring to the above rule it is contended by Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the authorities have given go-by to the mandatory requirements contained therein i.e. fifteen days minimum time and communication through the competent authority i.e. District Collector. In the instant case, Form VI notice dated 28.07.2009 was forwarded to the petitioner through the Tahasildar, Saluru, on 02.08.2009, asking the petitioner to appear on 07.08.2009 i.e. within five days contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 8 (d) (1) of the Rules. The District Level Scrutiny Committee neither adhered to the time of fifteen days nor served the notice in Form VI through the District Collector/competent authority. This infraction, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the language employed in the above said Rules, would touch the very root of the matter and renders any proceedings taken up including the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee invalid. Therefore, the very notice dated 29.09.2009, which is impugned in W.P.No.21718/2009, issued basing on such report is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of Law.
12) Another infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is failure on the part of the respondents in furnishing complaint alleged to have been made by the petitioner in W.P.No.21535/2010 and non-communication of the enquiry report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. The said aspect is no longer res integra in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Bhakthavathsala Sukumar’s case (referred supra) and also in W.P.No.15938 of 2013 (referred supra) wherein this Court categorically held that failure to furnish copies of the reports would be violative of the principles of natural justice and render the proceedings invalid. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned notice dated 29.09.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, cannot sustain in the eye of law.
13) For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, and Rules framed thereunder and keeping in view the principles laid down by this Court in above referred judgments, W.P.No.21718 of 2009 is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 29.09.2009. It is also made clear that all other proceedings including the report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee are also liable to be invalidated and accordingly the same are also set aside. However, it is open for the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry into the social status of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.
14) Consequently, W.P.No.21535 of 2010 also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
15) Miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals, if any, shall stand closed.
A.V. SESHA SAI, J
15th July, 2014. sur
[1] 2003 (4) ALD 25