Thupakula Ramakrishna v. Crime (FlR) No.13412012 dt11.7.2012 on the fite of 3rd

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Court may :re pleased to vacate the interirr order dt. 07.09.2012 passed in WPMP.No. :t557612012 in WP.No. 27 922 of 2C12 IANO:1OF2024 Between:

1. The District Collector, Khammam District Khammam 2. The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam Khammam Districl 3. The station House officer, Bhadracharamlforice Station Bhadracharam, - Khammam District AND ...PET|T|ONERS/RESPONDENTS Thupakula Ramakrishna, S/o B.T. Ramulu, Aged 4g Vears Occ Railwav Servant, South Centrat Raitway Hyderabad Divisi6;, Se;ui;uiioi'J" ''"' "'", ...RESPONOENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated:07.09.20'12 in lA.No.1/20 (wpMp.No.355 t6l2o12) in W.P.No.27922 of 1012 and dismiss the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt S. LAXMA REDDY SENTOR COUNSEL REp Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR REVENUE SRI. ALLIKA SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No,27922 oF 20L2 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Laxma Reddy, .' learned Senior Designated Counsel representing, Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached thas Court seeking the prayer as under: "...to iss;ue a Writ, Order or Direction particulaly one in t1e nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/1087/2012 Dated :. | .07 .2OL2 of the znd Respondent a 'ld further rrr:tion of the 3rd Respondent in registerilg the Crime (FIR) No.134/2012 dated 11.07.20t2 'tn the basis; of the said letter under Section 420 IPC as totally llegal, without jurisdiction, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation cf the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.M.P,No.20B59/2006 in W.P.No.16659/20t:)6 dated 09.08.2006 and consequently prohibit tre .: ---"= l : '--...-EF'!.!-- I ) Respondents from taking any action on the basis of 2nd Respondents impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/1087/2012 dated IL.O7.2OI2 and Crime (FIR) No.134/20L2 dated tI.O7.2OI2 on the fite of 3rd Respondent and to pass such and further order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ,,

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner,s grand father hails from Bhadrachalam and belongs to..Valmiki Community". The petitioner,s father secured employment in the railways and was transferred from place to place and finally retired in Khandwa. The petitioner,s father belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste ..Valmiki,,. The respondent No.2 after due verification issued ST Caste Certificate to the petitioner dated 19.07.1985 and petitioner was appointed as Trains Clerk on 23.04.1988. Before the petitioner was appointed in railways, the petitioner applied to the post of probationary Officer in Andhra Bank against the reserved S.T category. Thereafter, on the complaint made by the Divisional Secretary, AISCSTREA, Hyderabad a termination notice dated 01.08.2006 was issued stating that the petitioner caste certificate issued by respondent No.2 was cancelled by the J Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 26.L2.7995 and the same was communicated to the railways vide letter or'District Collector dated 16.03.2006. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings in R.C.No.C/IOB7/2012 dated

77.07.2012 addressed to respondent No.3 to take apgrropriate action in pursuance to the Joint Collector's pro,::eedings No.BB/7856/89, dated 26.L2.1995 cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitiorrer filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

4. The lmDu ned Rc.N o.c LOAT 120L2 dated lt.O7.2ol2 of the 2nd resoondent addressed to the 3'd resoond Droce edinqs extracted ereu nder: "As per- the orders of District Collector Khammam vide 1't ani 2nd reference cited. I am to state ttat one Thupakula Rama Krishna S/o.BT Ramulu, Railway Managerr, SCR., Personnel Branch, Hyderabad i)ivision, Secunderabad has obtained the Caste certificate as Valmiki (Scheduled Tribe). After thorough enquiry the certificate has been cancelled and declared as disvalued vide pr<rceedings No.BB/78561L989, dated 26.12 1995. 4 ..1 Basing on the above circumstances and the prima- facie has proved against the said Thupakula Rama Krishna S/o. BT Ramulu, that he cheated the State Government by taking the false " Certificate as ST (Valmiki) by producing false proofs. Therefore, you are requested to take appropriate legal action against the said Thupakula Rama Krishna S/o. BT Ramulu, Railway Manager, SCR., Personnel Brach, Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad and proceed accordingly." DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION 5. Petitioner herein filed W.P.No.16659 of 2OO5 seeking prayer as under:- "To issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/00 dated 16.03.2006 as well as the proceedings in Rc.No.BB 7856/89 dated 26.72.1995 said to have been issued by the'2nd respondent behind back of the petitioner as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of the basic principles of natural justice and - consequently set aside the same with all consequential reliefs and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " I T )

6. Taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that W.P.No.16659 of 2006 fited by the petitioner herein had been allowed as prayed for by the petationer on 06.O3,2O25, and since the present writ petition challenging the impugned letter, rlated Ll.O7.2(J1-2 of the 2nd respondent addressed to the 3.d respondent also has been allowed on this day of 06.03.2025, the impugned proceedings in Rc. No.C/ 1987 / 2OL2 dated Lt.O7 .2OL2 of the Z"d respondent and further action of the 3'd respondent in registering the Crime (FIR) No.134 of 2O12 rtated LL.O7.2OL2 on the basis of the said letter under Section 42O IPC is declared as illegal. In view of the fact as borne on record that impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C,1 LOBT/2OL2 dated L[.O7.2O1-2 of the 2nd respondent had been the only basis for the 3'd respondent to register the Crime ( FIR) No.13412012 dated LL.O7.2OL2 and in view of the fact that the said proceedings, dated 11.07.2O12 had treen declared as illegal in the present writ petition, the respondents are directed not to take any action against ( ( 6 the petitioner on the basis of znd respondent's impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.C/ 1087 / 2OL2 dated LL.O7.2OL2. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. rhat iLle Nisi has been made absolute as above t Witness THE HOJ THE SIXTH D BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, THURSDAY, OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The District Coll lctor, Khammam District Khammam 2. The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam Khammam Distric 3. The Station Hou e Officer, Bhadrachalam Police Station Bhadrachalam Khammam Dis 4. One CC to SRl. 5. Two CCs to GP Hyderabad [OU 6. Two CCs to GP Hyderabad [O 7. Two CD Copi-es FOR HOME ,Hi gh Court for the State of Telangana at LIKA SURESH, Advocate loPUcl OR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at BM HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.27922 of 2012 ( ..] ') 23 AFfl lffi ,\. .i. 7Z i-- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ A{ ct ,/ HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA PETITI 1 6s9 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing, Sri Allika Suresh, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pteader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Kumar, learned Standing Cosnsel appearing on behalf Sri K. Aravind of respondent No,4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/00 dated 16,03.2006 as well as the proceedings in Rc.No.88 7856/89 dated 26.12.L995 said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent behind back of the petitioner as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violation of Articles ]"4, 76 and 2L of Constitution of India and in violation of the basic principles of natural justice z and consequently set aside the same with all consequential reliefs and pass such other order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's grandfather hails from Bhadrachalam and belongs to ''Valmiki Community". The petitioner's father secured employ'nent in the railways and was transferred from place to pl;rce and finally retirecl in Khandwa. The petitioner's father belongs to Scheduled Tribe caste "Valmiki". The respondent Nc,.2 after due veriFication issued ST Caste Certificate to the p(rtitioner dated 19.07. L9B5 and petitioner was appointed a:' Trains Clerk on 23.04.1988. Before the petitioner was appointed in railways, the petitioner applied to the post of Probationary Officer in Arrdhra Bank against the reserved S.T category. on the complaint made by the D'visional Thereafter, . Secretary, ATSCSTREA, Hyderabad, Respondent No.4 issued notice to tire petitioner to produce the original Caste Certificate. Subsequently, termination notice dated

01.08.2006 rryas issued by respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner caste certificate issued by respondent No.3 was 3 cancelled by the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated

26.72.L995 and the same was communicated to the railways vide letter of District Joint Collector _-dated 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECO RD:-

4. Paraqraoh No.3 of the counter affidavit file on beh alf of th resDon ents is extracte d hereu der: "I submit that the W.p.No.16659 of 2006 does not disclose any valid cause oF action and the writ petition including the relief sought is misconceived, baseless, and incorrect. The Petitioner is misrepresenting the factual position with regard to his appointment as Train Clerk on 23-04-1988 against the post reserved to the schedule tribe. The Petitioner was further promoted as Goods Guard in the year 1992 and as Passenger Guard in the year 1998 and continuing as such under the reserved category. The caste certificate as schedule tribe was subject matter of investigation under the provisions of A.p (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates' Act, 1993. The District Collector, Khammam vide Proceeding R.C.No.BB/7856/89 4 dtd 26-12-t995 has cancelled the caste certific,rte issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Badrachalam vide R.is.No.C/577/85 dtd. 19-07-1985 with clue opportunity to the petitioner and.published 1he same in the District Gazette on 02-03-2000. lhe Petitiorrer has not availed the opportunity to adduce evidence and substantiate the claim and file an appeal within the stipulated time as provided under the Act. The said cancellat'on having become final and appeal having not been filed a s provided in Section-7 of Act, the V1/ rit Petition challenging the Notice dated 01-08-2006. is misconceived and the writ petition deserves to be dism issed with costs.

5. The relevant portion of the Impuqned Ord er dated 16.03.2OO5 of the 2d resoondent .is extracted hereunder: "The Director, TW, Hyderabad, has reported that Sri Thupakula Ramakrishna, S/o. BT. Ramulu, is an ordinary resident of Ulindikonda of Kurnool District. which is not declared as Agency Tracts, the candidate cannot be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe. Further requested to arrange for cancellation of the community certificate issued to the said individual by the Mandal Revenue Officr,rr, Bhadrar:halam of Khammam Dist. 5 The d iled enouirv has been conducted and as oer procedure the (ST) Valimi Ca e Certificate obtain from the Manda! Revenue Officer, Bhadrat alam, vide R.Dis.No.C- 577 /A5. dt.19.O7.8s bv Sri T.Rama Krishna, S./o. BT. Ramulu, has been cancelled vide this office oroceedinos dt.26.12.95 (coov Rc.No.B8-7856149. enclosed )."

6. The relevant Dortion of t e imouoned order in ROC No.88-7856/89 dated

6.12.1995, is extracted heteunder: "5. The individual was issued a show cause notice vide this office reference 3d cited to submit his explanation within (7) days from the date of receipt of show cause notice for having obtained certificate keeping the officials in darkness and obtained bogus certificate without bringing the facts to the notice of the officers and the show cause notices were sent to his residential address at Kurnool as well as to Bhadrachalam. The notice which was sent bv reod. oost to the idential address of Kurnool. has returned to this office with the endorsed that no such addressee at Kurnoo! by the Dost man and the M.R.O., 6 Bhadrachalam has also reoorted in the reference 4s cited t at the individu al is not Bhadrachalam and his residinq at wherea bouts are not known ald the show cause nctice was published in Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat Office, Police Station, M.P.P Office, M.R.O's Office, Village Chawadi and alsc, by beat of tom tom in Bhadrachalam town and no response is received for the show causer notice ssued by this office so far. 6. After examining the evidence put fortt'r before me and as per the enquiries made by ther Director of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, it is; establis;hed that Sri T.Rama Krishna, S/o. B.T. Ramulu, does not belongs to "Valmiki" Tribe 01' Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist. In view of the above facts and 7. exercise of the oowers conferred bv the Govt. vide G.O. s.No.282 S.W.(J2) Deoartment. dated 19.12.88, I herebv order that "Valmiki" caste certificate issued the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam. vide R.Dis.No.S-577l85. dt. 19.7.A5. is herebv cancelled."

7. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per Section 5 of the ../)/ ,z' a,/ 7 - Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Castes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, it is the District Collector, who is the corlpetent authority to cancel the Caste Certificate, but in the present case, the Joint' Collector had cancelled the Caste Certificate without jurisdiction, by passing an ex-pafte impugned order dated

26.12.t995 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put-forth petitioner's case, and therefore the consequential order dated 16.03.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal and hence both the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent dated 26.12.L995 and 16.03.2006 need to be set aside.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rampal vs. State of Haryana and others", reported in (2009) 9 SCC LB7 in particular paragraph Nos.5 and 6 very clearly observed that it is admitted' position that before cancellation of the caste certificate of the appellant therein, the authorities ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant therein and rejecting the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said Apex Court Judgment are extracted hereunder: - 8 "5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned ordet and other materials on record. In our view, th€r appeal is liable to be allowed and t{re impugnec order should also be set aside on a very short point. It is an admitted position that before the cancellation of the caste certificate of the aooellant, the authorities ouoht to have qiven an oooortunitv of hearino to the aooellant to conten that the certificate issued to him was a Scheduled Caste Certificate" and therefore- it ca nnot be cancelled.

6. In view of the fact that the principles of natural justice were admittedly violated in this case, the impugned order must be set aside and the Tahsilrlar concerned must be directed to decide the dispute regarding the caste certificate of the appellant after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order, preferably within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order to him."

9. Learne<l Government Pleader for Social \A/elfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 placing relia,rce on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 9 respondent No.4 in the present W.p.No.16659 of .2006 in pafticular paragraph No.3 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for in the prgsent W.p.No.16659 of 2006.

10. A bare perusal of the impugned order in Rc.No.BB- 7856/89 dated 26.12.1995, in particular paragraph No.5, clearly indicates that the order impugned had been passed without even receiving the response of the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated 28.09.1990, from the petitibner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order impugned cancelling the caste ceftificate issued in favour of the petitioner dated 26.12.1995 passed by the 2nd respondent, as borne on record, clearly indicates that the same is an ex-parte order, passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and also contiary to the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 187 in "Rampal Vs. State of Haryana and Others". It is also borne on record that the authority, who passed the order is not a competent authority as indicated in Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of 10 .1 i Community Certificates Act, 1993, which is erxtracted hereunder:- '5. Cancellation of the false Community Certificate: (f ) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act a person not belon,ling to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes has obtained a l'alse Comm Jnity Certificate to the eFfect that eilher himself or his children belongs to such Cas,tes, Tribes or Classes, District Collector ma either suo motu or on a written com plaint by any person, call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if he is of the opinior that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, he shall, by notification, cancel the certificiate after giving the person concerned an opportlrnity of making representation: Provided that where an' enquiry into the genuineness of a community certificate issued prior to the commencement of this Act has commenced and is pending at such commencement, the rec:ord thereof shall be transferred by the concerned authority to the District Collector and he shall continue the enquiry and conclude the same under this su b-section. ,aa' ;, (2) The powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Govern ment.

11. The int flmD raver int e oresent w.P. o.16 59 a t e d hereunder: "It is also just and necessary that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to Suspend the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.D3-4674/00 dated 16.3.2006 as well as the Proceedings in Rc.No.B8/7856/89 dated 26.t2.7995 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,, w. h r h 2 6 h t e .M.P. o.2O 59 of 2006 usDendinq he ooeration of u Pr 3 N h 7 v R !n N -4 o s .12 d 12 L2. This Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in W.P.No.16659 of 2O06, since the impugned order vide R.C.No.D3-4674/OO dated 16.O3.2006 of the respondent No.2 is passed- only on the basis of the proceedings vide Rc.ltlo.B8- 7a56/I9a9 dated 26.12.1995 of the Joint Collector, Khammam which is iltega! and is passed by the 2nd respondent, without jurisdiction as per Section 5 of the Telangana Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

13. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a). The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b). The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader lor Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. l3 c). The view of the Hon'ble Apex Cou+ in the judgment reported in (2009) 9 SCC 187 in "Rampal vs. State of Haryana and others" _(refered to and extracted above). d), The fact as borne on record that the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.B8-7856/L9A9 dated 26.1-2.1995 of the Joint Collector, Khammam is admittedly not only without Jurisdiction but also in clear violation of principlep of natural justice. e). The fact as borne on record that the impugned Proceedings dated 16.O3.2006 of the 2nd respondent is purely on the basis of the earlier ex parte impugned proceedings passed by the 2n" respondent dated 25-12.1995, and the same had been passed in ilear violation of principles of natural justice, The writ petition is allowed and the order impugned vide proceedings in Rc.No.D3-46741OO aatea id.os.2oo6 issued by the 2"d respondent as well as the proceedings in Rc.No.B8 7A56la9 dated

26.L2.1.995 issued by the 2"d respondent behind the 14 back of the petitioner are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Mis,:ellaneous petitions, if any, pending :,;hall stand closed. MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 06.03.2O25 Dsu