Y. Krishna Rao vs The District Collector, The Sub-Collector and The Mandal Revenue Officer

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C. No. 8790/91, 1, B8, dated 10.7.1997, by which, the caste certificate issued by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kotturu in favour of the petitioner that he belongs to Jatapu (S.T community), was cancelled, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that he belongs to Jatapu (S.T. community).

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to Jatapu (S.T. Community). When he was appointed for the post of Kalasi in 1976 in the office of the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Eastern Railway at Kharagpur, he produced his community certificate, which was accepted by the railway authorities. In 1986, he was asked by the railway authorities to produce his community certificate afresh from the revenue authorities for the purpose of promotion. He approached the Mandal Revenue Officer-3rd respondent, who, after enquiry, issued the caste certificate on 8.8.1986 certifying that he belongs to Jatapu. On production of it, the Deputy Controller of Stores, addressed a letter to the 1st respondent-Collector, Srikakulam District for verification and genuineness of the certificate issued by the 3rd respondent. The District Collector, in his letter dated 7.8.1987, informed the Deputy Controller of Stores that an inquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kotturu wherein, it was established that the petitioner was not a resident of Labba village and he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community as claimed. On receipt of a letter from the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent-Sub-Collector issued a notice, dated 22.8.1987 to the petitioner directing him to submit written explanation and produce evidence if any for examination of any witness on his behalf. Under those circumstances, the petitioner, challenging the letter of the 1st respondent and the notice of the 2nd respondent, filed W.P. No. 17167 of 1987, which was disposed of by an order dated 24.9.1991 with a direction to the District Collector to conduct necessary enquiry giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and communicate the result of the enquiry to the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Eastern Railway, within three months from the date of the petitioner submitting the material as aforesaid. When the petitioner attended the enquiry in March, 1992, he took four witnesses along with him, but the 1st respondent postponed the enquiry and informed that subsequent date will be communicated. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any communication from him about the enquiry except a communication from the 3rd respondent to furnish the particulars for the purpose of enquiry of genealogical tree of his family. Thereafter the 1st respondent passed the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner''s community certificate issued by the 3rd respondent. The order further reveals that the 1st respondent, based on the material filed by the petitioner, referred the matter to the 3rd respondent for enquiry and report. In W.P. No. 17167 of 1987, the 1st respondent alone was directed to conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Furthermore, G.O.Ms. No. 282 Social Welfare J-2 Department, dated 19.12.1988 empowers the District Collectors to cancel the community certificates after conducting due enquiry. Contrary to the above, the 1st respondent directed the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit report. Hence, the entire impugned proceedings are vitiated since they are contrary to the directions issued by this Court and also the executive instructions issued by the State Government.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. In earlier round of litigation when the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17167 of 1987, this Court was pleased to dispose of it with a direction to the Collector to conduct necessary enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and communicate the result of the enquiry to the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Eastern Railway, within a period of three months from the date of the petitioner submitting the material as aforesaid. Further, it was observed that the petitioner shall be continued in service. Pursuant to the orders, it appears that the 1st respondent-Collector directed the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to hold an enquiry and submit his report. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent, after conducting the enquiry, submitted the report.

It is one of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the specific direction of this Court was that the Collector should hold an enquiry, but the Collector, without holding any enquiry, delegated his powers to the Mandal Revenue Officer, as such, the very reports, based on which the impugned orders are passed are contrary to the spirit of the judgment. I am afraid, I cannot accept the said contention. No doubt, in the order, it was observed that the Collector should hold an enquiry, but it does not mean that the Collector shall not direct the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned to hold enquiry and submit the report. In fact, the order reads that the Sub-Collector issued a notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner, who submitted his explanation and produced certain documentary evidence establishing the fact that he belongs to Jatapu. Only to ascertain the fact whether the documentary evidence produced by him is correct or not, the Collector directed the 3rd respondent to hold an enquiry and submit report, pursuant to which the report was furnished. This does not mean that the Collector himself did not conduct enquiry but totally directed the 3rd respondent to hold it. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

I find force in the second submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector, before coming to the conclusion based on the report furnished by the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not give the petitioner any opportunity of being heard nor did he furnish the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer to him.

When the case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Jatapu and he placed certain documentary evidence, the Collector ought to have furnished the report submitted by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner to rebut as to how the documentary evidence is not correct. In the instant case, it is clear that the Collector has not furnished the report to the petitioner, which in my considered view, is definitely hit by the principles of natural justice. Further, the A.P. (S.C., S.T. & B.Cs.) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates, 1993 (for short "the Act") has come into existence and according to Section 4 of the Act, it is only the District Collector, who alone is competent to issue any community certificate and according to Section 5 of the Act, it is the same authority, who can also cancel the caste certificate. In the light of these provisions, it is also clear that it is only the Collector, who is competent to hold an enquiry and cancel the caste certificate if ultimately it is proved that the caste certificate is found bogus.

For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 10.7.1997 passed by the 1st respondent-Collector are hereby set aside and consequently the 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders only after furnishing the enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Officer to the petitioner enabling him to offer his explanation. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.