Nos.1 and 2 are spouses v. No.3 is the sister-in-law

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are spouses. Petitioner No.3 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1. All of them were issued caste certificates the effect they belong to Kondakapu Community. Proceedings were initiated against them under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) before the District Collector, East Godavari, respondent No.2 herein, for cancellation of their caste certificates. The matter was referred to the District Level Scrutiny Committee and through his order, dated

17.05.2005, respondent No.2 directed cancellation of the caste certificates issued to them. The petitioners state that the order, dated 17.05.2005, was not communicated to them and only on coming to know from other sources, they secured the copy of the order by filing an application under the Right to Information Act,

2005. An appeal was preferred under Section 7(2) of the Act before respondent No.1 against the order, dated 17.05.2005, on

03.07.2006. Through Memo, dated 31.08.2006, respondent No.1 rejected the appeal on the ground that it is time barred. The same

is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Act and the Rules made thereunder are a comprehensive code in relation to the determination of the social status and the adjudication of disputes arising out of it. Section 5 of the Act confers power upon respondent No.2 to cancel a caste certificate after following the procedure. Section 7 of the Act provides for an appeal. The limitation therefor is prescribed as 30 days from the date of publication of the order in the State Gazette. In the instant case, the petitioners state that they have not even been served a copy much less the order was published in the Gazette. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is stated that the impugned order, dated

17.05.2005, was despatched on 16.06.2005. However, it is silent as to whether the order was served upon the petitioners at all. The counter-affidavit is silent as to whether the order was published in the Gazette. When such are the lapses on the part of respondent No.1, the right of appeal conferred upon the petitioners cannot be taken away. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned Memo is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to entertain the appeal without raising any objection as to the limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.03.2010.