IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24676 of 2014 BETWEEN Shashank Nanda Kumar.
AND The District Collector, Hyderabad District and three others.
... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MUDDU VIJAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) MR. A. ABHISHEK REDDY SC for JNTU The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioner questions the memo-Ex.P1 in Letter No.A/279/2014, dated 29.03.2014, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, second respondent herein.
2. By the aforesaid memo, the petitioner’s application for grant of caste certificate, as belonging to ‘Kamsali’ community, was rejected on the ground that the Mother Tongue of the petitioner is Tamil as per the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the impugned memo by contending that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned memo in terms of Section 4 read with Annexure-I of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the competent authorities, described under the Rules, are specified in Annexure-I, and for all BC Groups, all Mandal Revenue Officers in the State not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar are designated as competent authorities. Learned counsel also pointed out that under Section 4 (1) of the Act, a certificate with regard to community issued by any person, Officer or authority, other than the competent authority, is invalid. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the matter requires to be considered by the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar, third respondent herein
5. Learned Government Pleader does not contest the above legal position and submits that the third respondent will appropriately re-consider the petitioner’s request for grant of certificate.
6. In view of the above, the impugned memo is set aside.
The petitioner’s application dated 25.01.2014 shall stand remitted for fresh consideration to the third respondent, who shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders thereon at the earliest keeping in view the ensuing admission process. In view of the fact that the counselling process will be shortly completed by 31.08.2014 and since the consideration of petitioner’s application, by the third respondent, would take some time, it is just and appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the counseling and consider his case also for provisional admission in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. The provisional admission shall, however, be valid for the period prescribed under Rule 19 of the Rules within which time the petitioner shall produce the certificate required failing which the provisional admission shall cease, as provided under Rule 19 of the Rules.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 26, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 27.08.2014.
(B/o) DSK