Pedapenki Anuradha and three others v. The Government of A.P., Reptd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.Avani Reddy For
Sri G.Tuhin Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Social Welfare The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The petitioners who are siblings filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.4 in disposing of their applications for issuance of caste certificates. According to the petitioners, they belong to Jatapu caste, which is notified as Scheduled Tribe and that they have made applications to respondent No.4 in the prescribed form for issuance of caste certificates. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that enquiry conducted by respondent No.4, and the report sent by him to the District Collector, a copy of which was obtained by them under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 21.03.2011, confirmed their caste as Jatapu caste. They feel aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.4 in issuing the caste certificates in their favour. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to issuance of caste certificates as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. In my opinion, when a person has applied for issuance of caste certificate, the obligation is cast on the competent authority, who is respondent No.4 in the instant case, to examine the same and issue the caste certificate if he is satisfied that the person belongs to the caste as claimed by him. Conversely, if he is not satisfied about such claim, he shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same in order to enable the aggrieved party to avail further remedies. Admittedly, respondent No.4 who received the applications from the petitioners has neither issued the caste certificates nor passed any order rejecting the petitioners’ applications. Therefore, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioners’ applications and act in accordance with the procedure as indicated above. His decision shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.34185 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd November 2011 DR
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Nov 2011. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.