Skip to content


The Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhap Vs. V. Subbaraju, Proprietor Raja Trading - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantThe Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhap
RespondentV. Subbaraju, Proprietor Raja Trading
Excerpt:
.....no.1 has confirmed order, dated 07.10.2000 of respondent no.2, cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate, dated 09.02.1990, issued by respondent no.3. the petitioner was appointed as police constable on the strength of the caste certificate issued in his favour by respondent no.3 as belonging to madiga (sc) community. when complaints were received that he belongs to golla caste, which is a backward caste, respondent no.2 has referred the complaints to the district level scrutiny committee, ananthapur (for short 'the committee'). the petitioner appeared before the committee on 18.09.2000 and produced the following documents: "1. copy of message form dated 08.08.1993, in respect of recruitment of police constables. 2. copy of t.c. bearing serial no.02651. 3. copy of t.c......
Judgment:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34573 o”

03. 01.2012 G.Durga Prasad The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by Its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (CV.I) Department, Hyderabad and two others Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Social Welfare ?CITATIONS:

2011. 5) Alt 443 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 02.12.2011, whereby respondent No.1 has confirmed order, dated 07.10.2000 of respondent No.2, cancelling the petitioner's Caste certificate, dated 09.02.1990, issued by respondent No.3.

The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on the strength of the Caste certificate issued in his favour by respondent No.3 as belonging to Madiga (SC) community.

When complaints were received that he belongs to Golla caste, which is a backward caste, respondent No.2 has referred the complaints to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, Ananthapur (for short 'the Committee').

The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 18.09.2000 and produced the following documents: "1.

Copy of Message Form dated 08.08.1993, in respect of Recruitment of Police Constables.

2.

Copy of T.C.

bearing Serial No.02651.

3.

Copy of T.C.

bearing Serial No.93 4.

Copy of Residence Certificate bearing No.143, dated 27.01.1993 5.

Copy of Caste Certificate issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur, issued on 09.02.1990 6.

Copy of proceedings of DO.No.851/93/C.

No.(7124/ K:1/92), dated 15.08.1993." The Committee has examined the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and also recorded the statements of the paternal aunt, brothers, brother-in-law of the petitioner and the Senior Manager of the employer in which the petitioner's brother was working as Winder.

On completion of the enquiry, the Committee has submitted its report holding that the petitioner does not belong to Madiga (SC) community and that he belongs to Yadava (Golla) community (BC).

Considering the report of the Committee, respondent No.2 has passed a detailed order vide his proceedings not Rc.MC:3/1477/99, dated 07.10.2000, declaring that the petitioner does not belong to Madiga (SC) community and cancelled the Caste certificate obtained by the petitioner as Madiga (SC) community.

Respondent No.2 also directed respondent No.3 to launch prosecution against the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 19.02.2001, before respondent No.1.

The petitioner secured an interim order of stay and on the strength of the said interim order, he continued in his employment as Police Constable.

After adjourning the case on as many as 56 times, respondent No.1 has eventually dismissed the appeal by the impugned G.O.

issued on 02.12.2011.

Assailing these two orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

At the hearing, Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the petitioner is denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by respondent No.1 and therefore, the impugned G.O.

is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel made a fervent request that one final opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prove that he belongs to Madiga (SC) community.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the material on record.

A perusal of the impugned G.O.

shows that the case was posted for hearing by respondent No.1 on 56 occasions, out of which, the petitioner appeared only on three occasions.

On 23.03.2011, the petitioner's father-in-law by name Brahmananda Reddy, appeared without authorisation and requested for a final chance for personal hearing.

Accordingly, the petitioner was given the opportunity of personal hearing on 18.04.2011, 29.04.2011 and 10.10.2011, but he did not avail all those opportunities.

Respondent No.1 was, therefore, left with no option other than examining the order of respondent No.2 and confirming the said order.

The petitioner has not disputed the above facts noted by respondent No.1 in the impugned G.O.

It is noteworthy that the appeal was filed by the petitioner as far back as 19.02.2001 and he was able to successfully drag on the appeal for nearly 11 years.

On the strength of the interim order obtained by the petitioner pending the appeal, he continued to hold the post of Police Constable.

In my considered opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was denied a fair opportunity of being heard.

Accordingly, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

With respect to the merits of the case, it is evident from the facts of the case that the petitioner has studied Classes 7 to 10 in Nethaji Municipal High School, Hindupur.

He has joined 7th Class in the year 1981 and studied upto 9th Class.

After completion of 9th Class, he has taken the Transfer certificate bearing No.12/84-85 on 11.06.1984.

In the said Transfer certificate, the petitioner's caste was clearly mentioned as Hindu-Yadava.

Very curiously, the petitioner has again joined in the same school within 12 days of his taking the Transfer certificate i.e., on 23.06.1984 in 10th Class.

On completion of his 10th Class, the petitioner has obtained Transfer certificate on 01.07.1985, wherein for the first time, his caste is shown as Hindu-Madiga (SC).

On the basis of the above material, the Committee held that the petitioner has intentionally taken the Transfer Certificate on completion of 9th Class and readmitted himself within a few days in 10th Class in the same school with a false entry that he belongs to Hindu-Madiga (SC) community.

The petitioner has secured employment as Police Constable under reserved quota meant for Scheduled Castes.

The explanation offered by the petitioner that he was given in adoption to one Sri Hanumantharayappa and his wife-Marekka, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, while he was studying 7th Class, was rejected outright by the Committee.

The petitioner failed to produce any adoption deed much less a registered adoption deed.

On perusal of the entire record, the Committee has held that while the petitioner was readmitted into 10th Class during the year 1985, Sri Suryanarayana and Venkatamma, who are the brother and mother of the petitioner, respectively, have signed the petitioner's application as guardians and that Sri Suryanarayana has given a statement before the Committee that he himself admitted the petitioner into Nethaji Municipal High School.

The Committee has, therefore, concluded that the entire case put forth by the petitioner that on account of adoption taken by Hanumantharayappa and his wife, belonging to Scheduled Caste, his community has undergone a change is false.

Besides examining the above-mentioned record, the Committee has recorded the statements of Smt Golla Lakshmi Kanthamma, the paternal aunt of the petitioner, Sri A.Suryanarayana and Sri G.Venkatesu, brothers of the petitioner and Sri Golla Nanjappa, brother-in-law of the petitioner and the Senior Manager of the employer of the petitioner's brother, and has drawn the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Madiga (SC) community.

Under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, the burden is on the person who holds the community certificate to prove that he belongs to the said community.

Except asserting that he was adopted by a couple belonging to Scheduled Caste, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever in support of his stand.

On the contrary, overwhelming evidence which was available before the Committee and discussed by it proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner does not belong to Hindu-Madiga (SC) community and that, he belongs to Yadava (Golla) community, which is a backward caste.

This Court in B.Suseelamma V.

Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool1 has shown serious concern over growing instances of gross misuse of community certificates and securing seats in educational institutions and public employment.

It is apt to reproduce the relevant part of its observations herein below: ".....It is a matter of grave concern that scores of people who belong to upper strata of the society have been indulging in gross misuse of the community certificates obtained by playing fraud, depriving the people belonging to the oppressed and under-privileged communities of their due share of reservation in educational institutions and public employment.

In the considered opinion of this court, such people do not deserve any sympathies whatsoever.

Not only that the fake community certificates obtained by the persons making fraudulent claims should be cancelled, they have to be severely punished by handing-out appropriate punishment in terms of Section 10 of the Act.

The petitioner, thanks to the bogus community certificate and the interim orders obtained by her after the cancellation of the community certificate by respondent No.1, has successfully secured and managed to continue in the employment, for more than three decades.

Thus far, and no further.

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).

Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate prosecution forthwith against the petitioner in terms of Section10 of the Act.

Respondent No.2 is directed to initiate appropriate steps against the petitioner for withdrawal of the benefits secured by her and also recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 of the Act." In the light of the above facts, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and hence, the same is dismissed.

Respondent No.2 is directed to pursue the criminal case and see that the same is concluded expeditiously, apart from ensuring that appropriate action is initiated immediately for withdrawal of the benefits secured by him and recovery of such benefits in accordance with sub- sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.43013 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

_____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd January 2012


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //