The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to5: SRI A. RAVINDER, AGP FOR SOCI \L WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI CHATLAYUGENDEII The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO t257 0F 2025 Sth December, 2025 Between: Chouhan Devanand and 6 others AND Appellants / Petitiolrcrs The Slate of Telangana and 5 othcrs Respondents/ ResPondents Mr.Koppula Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants' Mr.A.Ravinder, the leeLrned Govcrnment Plcader for Social Welfare' appeerine for the respondent Nos. I to '5' JUDGMENT: lper Hon'ble. h Lstice' Motrshumi Bhottachoryc)

1. Thc Writ Appeal arises out of an order datcd 29 lO '2025 passe<l by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition No.16607 of 2025 filcd by the appellants herein and directing thc District Legal Scrutiny Committee (DLSC), Adilabad to verify thc social status of the appellant Nos.2 to 7 in accordance rrith law rvhile ensuring due compliance with procedural safeguards'

2. The appellant Nos.l to 7 i'e , the writ petitioners before the ieJ,Snea Single Judge prayed for a writ of Mandarnus declaring the 2 MB,J & GPK,J W , .No.7257 of 2025 proceedings culminaring in the order datecl 28.05.2 ) 25 issued by t1-re District collector, Acl ilab:rd District, cancel[ng the ( aste cerlificates issucd by the Tahsildar, Itchoda Mandal, Adilabacr, in thvour of the uppellants as illegrl and a rbirra n . 3- By the in-rpr_rgned order, the lcarned Single Jirc qe held that the appe llants had firiicd to produce eviclence of S'I'-Lam t ada status prior to 1950 and the DLSC correctly concluded that the I aste Certificates issued to the appell:rnts n,ere false. The lcarncd Si.g e Judge further held that the appellants, claim of belonging to t re ST_Lambada community vuas prirnarily based on ancestral ass:.tions, previous certificates, and purported lelters from Lhc Al1 Inc r r Banjara Seva Sangh (AIBSS') *,hich u'ere fabricated clocurnent; It u.as alscr obserwed that thc appellants, allegations of rnala ftcl,z action, political rnterference and violirtion of the principlcs of natu al justice were unsubstantiatecl :rnd that the appellants hacl llso failed to demonstrate any lcgal or factual inhrmity, arbitrarinc s or a violation of the principles of natural justice in the order dated I t.O5.2025. The learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the Wri petition while granting liberty to the DLSC, Adilabad, to verify the ;ocial status of I 3 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.7257 of 2O25 the appcllant Nos.2 - 7 in accordance with law and upon due compliance with procedural safeguards.

4. We have considered the submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for the appc[lants / rvrit petrtioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Wclfare appearing lor the respondcnt Nos.1 5.

5. According to counsel appearing for the appellants, the appellants belong to the ST Lambada community and are residing in Adiiabacl District. The appellants claim that the appellant/writ petitioner No.1 has t"r'o wives and that both his wives also belong to the ST-l,ambada Communitl'. The five chrldren of the appellant No 1 and his hrst t'ife as well as the three children of the appellant No- I and his second wife, also belong to the same community and all thc appellants are presently residing at Harkapur Vil1age, Adilabad District. The appellants claim that they are earning their liveiihood by cultivating agricultural land at Itchoda Village, Adilabad District and they have also served as the Sarpanch and MPTC in that area' The appellants also claim that their Caste Certifrcates were renewed from time to time by the Tahsildar in recognition of the appellants I 4 MB,J & GPIT,J W.t .No.7257 of 2O25 belonging to the ST-Lambacla conmunity, on tl :: basis of thc ccrtillcates issuecl by thc AIBSS, Adilabad.

6. The Writ AffidzLrzit sLatcs thal pursuant to a Co rplaint made by the respondent No.6 (President of AIBSS, Adilab,r I District) with regarcl to the Castc Certihcatcs obtained by the appcl -ints bcing false, thc official respondents issueci proceedings u,hich r r lminated in the order dated 28.A5.2025 allowing the complaint of thi -esponde nt No.6 and cancelling the Caste Certificates issued ir.L favour of the apperllants/writ pe titioners. The appellants accordr .gly approached the Writ Court and filed W.P.No. l6t>O7 of 2O25 cor-r 1 lain r ng that the Castc Certificates \\,ere cancclled duc to the politicr,l respondent No.6/i)resident o[ tl're AIBSS arrd ri'r influence of the 'rout giving an opportunity of hearing to the appeliant s. Thc -rppellants also complained that the ofhcial respondents arc acting i r collusion with the r-cspondent No.6. 'l'hercfore, the appellants/ .r'rit petitioners prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.O5.2O2; as being illegal and arbitrary. 7 - The respondent No.3/District Collector, Adilabr. r hled a Counter to the Writ Petition stating, inter alia, that th e Government is qnpou,,ered to call lor and examine Lhe record relatinl 1o anv decision \ / "/ 5 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.7257 oJ 2025 made or order passed by any person in relation Lo the issuance of Caste Certificates under section 8(1) of the provisions of The Telangana (Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tnbes and' Backward Classcs) Regulation of [ssue of Community Cerlificates Act, 1993 ('1993 Act')' The respondents also rclied on Rule 9(10) of the A P' SCs' STs & BCs issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birlh Certiltcates Rules 1997 ('tl:le 1997 Rules') as amcnded b1' the GOMs No T9' datecl 24.07 .2OO2 which man<lates the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare either to act suo mot11 or on a written complaint by any person or on request made b1' an employer/ educational institution/ appointing authority, to enquire lnto the correctness of any community ' nativity and date of birth certiltcate alreacly issued and if it is found that the said certificale is obtained fraudulently, to refer the case to the concerned collcctor or the covernment for its cancellation as pe r the procedure laid clown under section 5 ol the 1993 Act'

8. The respondent No.3 also made a specific statement that the respondent No.3 had issued Notice dated 20 O3 2O25 to the writ petitioner No.l for appearing before the concerned authority on 24.03.2025 for substantiating his claim The Counter further stated that the writ petitioner No.l consequently appeared on 24 'O3 '2025 6 MB,J & GPK,J w.t .No.7257 of 2025 along u,ith his son and his Advocate and submir r :c1 rlocumcntary evidence in support of his clarm. Ilencc, there rva s no infracllon of principlcs of the natural justice on thc par[ of thc o][ rial respondents bcfore taking Lhe decision to cancel the Caste ( r rtificatcs of the trppcllants. 9- Wc shouicl hrst deal with thc objection takc.: b1r thc lcarned Govcrnment Plcader for Social Welfarc u'ith regarci r- ) the alternative remedy availabie to the appellants r-lnder thc 1993 Ar:r

10. Section 7 of tl-re 1993 Act provides for "Appc rl and Revieu/'. Scclion 7(2) provides that any person aggrieved Lx Ln order passed under section 5 by the District Collector rnar appeal to the Govcnrrnen[ uritl'rin thirty days from the date of pul lication of such ordcr in the G:rzette. The Government may confirrr. lr set aside the order appealed against after giving the appcllant i r opportunity of being 1-reard subject to the prescribed Rules. Se ,::L rn 7(3) further prorrides that the Government may on an applicatr.: r received from anv person aggrieved by an order passed by the Ci I 'ernment under section 5(2) of the 1993 Act may review any such orrl r subject to the application being made within thir[z days from the 1r Lblication of the order in the Gazette. The review may be permitted f the order has 7 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.1257 o;f 2025 been passed under any rnisLake of fact or law or in ignorance of any material fact. Section 5 of the 1993 Act relatcs lo 'Cancellation of false Community Certificate'. i 1. Section 5(1) authorises the District Coliector to act elther suo motu or on a \ /ritten complaint by an-v- person to call for the record and enquire into the correctness of a Communit)' Certificatc if the District Collector is of the opinion tl'rat lhe Certificate rl'as obtaincd fraudulently. Seclion 5(1) empon'ers thc Distrlct Collector by notification to cancel the Certific:rte after giving thc concerned person an opportunity of making a representation. Seclion 5(2) authoriscs the Government to exercise the samc powers as provided to Lhe District Collector under se ction 5( 1).

12. Hence, the appellants/lr'rit petltroners have the option of taking recourse to sections 7(2) and (3) of the 1993 Act for preferring an Appeal or Revieu, respectively as drscussed above. In fact, section 7(4) authorises the Government to slay the operation of the order appealed against or which forms the subject matter of the review, pending disposal of the appeai under sectron 7(2) or revieu' under section 7(3) of the 1993 Act. The appellants have not shown how the mattcr ltts into any of the exceptions warranting the invocation of the Writ ./ \ \ .t 8 MB,J & GPK,J w.t No.1257 of 2025 jurrsclrction of Lhe High court under Arttcle 226 of r,,r constitution of lnclia despite the .xistcnce of a statutory alLernative ., rnedy under the 1993 Act. The ordcr dated 28.05.2O25 passc-rl Dr the District Collector and Magrstr:rte, Adilabad cancelling the C.s e Ccrtificates of thc appellants lits into the statutory parameters of se :tion 7(2) of the 1993 Act. 'lhis C,urr is hence of the vier.l, that tht rppellants have larlecl to cxplain :is 1.., how the writ petition q,as mr i rtarnable zrt the hrst instance. L:1.. Evcn othet.urise, thc grounds as stated by tl.r( learned Single .IlLclqi: Ior dismissing thc trit pctitlon appear to bir lncontrovcrted. Thc lc'alncd Singic ,Judge found that the writ petitir r ers' farnilv had migrated from N4aharashtra in i956 and they hacl l: led to produce .lny .rvidencc of ST-l,ambadi status prior to 195O 1e brc the DLSC. Thc DLSC conseqnentlv dctermined that the Caste C,: tificates issued to thc appellants u'c-re false. The District Collector, I r hencc rightly cancellcd the Caste Certihcates of thr cxetcise of pou,ers accorded under section 5(1) of th: with Rule 9(7) of the 1997 Rules. The impugned orcl: that criminal complaints had been filed against the i and 7 for fabrir;ating lettcrs on the AIBSS letterhei ilabzrd District, appellants by 1993 Act read further states ppellant Nos.6 d and forging ,/. r' 9 MB,J Ab GPK,J w.A.No.7257 oJ 2025 signatures to obtain ST-Lambadi Certi[rcates. F{cnce, the Government was empowered to examlne and revtsc the records to cure any illegality, irreguiarity or improprietl, under section 8(1) of the 1993 Act as all the procedural requirements thercin hacl been fully complied with. The impugned order further states tha[ contrary to the allegations madc by the appellants in obtaining interim orclcrs iiom another learned Single Judge on 20.06.2025, thc ofhcial respondents had complied rvith the requirement of serving notices on Lhe appellant No. 1 who appeared before the concerned authori ty and submitted explanations and frled enquiries and scrutiny ensured a fair verification process.

14. On the factual aspcct, the learned Singlc Judgc found Lhat the appellants' clatm of belonging to ST Lambadi community relics primarily on ancestral assertion and false certificates as well as labricated letters from AIBSS and that tl're order dated 28 05.2025 had been issued after due enquiry, verification of documentary evidence and field-level social status investigation in compliance rvith the 1993 Act, the 1997 Rules, the GOMs dated 12.O5.1997 and the GOMs dated 08.08.2O14- The iearned Single Judge accordingly held that the appellants/writ petitioners had failed to demonstrate any 10 MB,J & GPK,J W.1 .No.7257 of 2025 legal or factual irrlrrrnrty, arbitrariness or violation ol lhe prinr:ip1es of naturlrl justicc in thc cancellatron of the appellants' ( astr: Ccrtihcates and iherefore clisnrissed the Wril Petition.

15. l'l'tc appcilrnts/u'rit pertitioners have no1 rnentioned any in sLances in 1he V,rrit Petition in support of their : rntcr-rtion of the vrolarion ol prinr.:rples of na[ural justicc. Thc l riL petitioners' conLrrtion Lhat thr: oilicial respondcnts hacl failed 1o Lssnr: r-roticcs for hcziring before tarking thc impugned step is contrat. to records- The appcll:rnts do not der-ry that the appellant No.1/r.r,ri peritioner No.1 appc:rrcd bcfore the concernerl authority along witli his advocale as u.cll :rs I'ris son ancl lurnished documentary evidenct n support of hls clairrs. This sr-rp1lrcssion itself would disentitle t}'re appellants / rvrit petiiioners front gr ant of any equitable relief. The .r rpellants in fact obtainecl an interim suspension of the impugtr:<1 order dated '28.At.2025 frorn aucther learned Single Judge o this Court on 2O.Ott.2O25 on thc ground that no notices had be :: r served on the appellants for cancellation of their Caste Certificates.

16. It is also relevant that the order dated 28.05.2t) 15 issued by the Coller:tor and District Magistrate, Adilabad elaborare _r. discusses thc inCiviclual and farrril-i,, history of the appellants inclu: ng tracing their 11 MB,J & GPK,J W.A.No.1257 of 2O25 ancestry lor the purpose of determining whcther the appellants belong to thc ST Lambadi Commltnity. 'l'he order alsc.r contrlitrs a sutntnaticl t ol thc evidence obtained lrom the Complainants frir canccllation oI tttc: appellants' Caste Certificates and scts out thc Finding atld Conclusions arrivcd at by the District Collector in detail. The tindings, inter alia, statc that the appcllant No.l mrgrated iiorn Maharashtra in 1956 artd the :rppcllant No- 1 's rclrtt ivcs bc'longing 1rr the BC Lambadis community, are residing irl Mal'rarashtra lltld thaL The Constitution (S.T.) Order, 1950 came into forcc with trfTect on

26.01.i95O and the Amendrnent Acts r,','ould not apply to those peoPlc belonging to particular tribal communitics who have migratcd after 1g50 and havc orclinanll been rcsiding in the statc OI Tclanganzr for il considerable pcriod. The order further states that The Schedulccl Tribcs Orders {Amendment) Act, 1976 is applicable only to those Lambadis whosc ancestors or their olTspring arc rcsidents of thc localil-y in any part of the State of Tclangana as on the date when the Constitution (scheduled Tribes) Order, 195O came into force The order hence concludes that the appellant No.1 and his family members having migrated from Maharashtra in 1956 are disentitled from claiming ST-Lambadi status in Telangana. 12 MB,J & GPI<,J W..1 No. 7257 of 2O2s 17 . 'l'he orrk.r :iccordingh.' four-rcl t1': c ST Lam lr la Cornmunitv Ccriiiiclrtcs t:;s lrd ro tlrc appcllants to [tc false , tcl clirc(]ted for c:rnt:r'll: r lion oi llrl sr..mc under the provisions of r lr . I993 Act ancl Rulcs lhereuurlr,, . artrl dcclarccl the aDpellants/dc i rqnents as ltot be'krrrging to th( Sl'l l-.arnttacli Communitr,.

18. i'lte lear.r,ri liltlll<:,Juclgc lcruncl lhe <:our:lusior;:; trrivecl at rn thc or-dr I rirrfed -2li ()).1[)]5 to bc r:orrect and $,itl]ou i rrr.v satisfactory cxpl:rr);rtion ot r i'i.rr rrr:rl on the p.rrt of thc appellantsT i'ril petitioners. Thr' ir rrnreci Sin.1l,. ,iir<lgc i-eliecl o,n GOMs dated 2.05.1997 ancl

08.tll.lO I 4 u,h i, 1r ,rc|:ptt'd scctiol 5(l ) of the I993 ,/\(. r.ead with Rule 9(7.\ L,l' the 199,' li ulcs ir-t tfie Statg 1f 'l'el"rngana rrr I held thst the :rppr,'llurrts/u,ri1 p('lrlion(.rs had faiied to dcmonstr !.o any lcgal or ti.rciu;rl infirmitr ;r,'trllrzrriness or violation o[ the prrrr :iples of natural .iristit ,' i. thc .rrlt r rlat.cl 28.05.2025 passed in .r r rcise of por,r,ers jfcc.)r 1l( rl undr.; i h,. siricl pro'isi,tn. We do not hncl .Dv error in thc reasons given l)) Lhe k::rrned Single Judqe in uphr lding the order clated 28.05.2O,2:r passed by the District Collector- rnd Magistrate, Aclilairacl cancellrng thc Caste Certificates of the app,r lants under the lrrovisi.ns of tlrr' 199.3 Act ancl lhe l99z Rules anrl the consequent 13 MB,J & GPI{,J W.A.No.7257 of 2O2S clcclaration that the appcllants do not belong to the ST Lambadi Community.

19. As stated above, the appellant No.l was callecl for a personal hcaring and he attcnded thc same along with his zrdvocate ancl son. Thc appcllant No. I represented the case and interesI of the appcllanr Nos.2 - 7 which is not disputed by the appellan[ Nos.2 7. Flcnr:c. there u'as no of thc principres of natu.trl justicc ,rrci ti'r. I)istrict Collector and Magist.rate, Adilabad, duly cornplied with thc proceclure conremplated undcr the 1g93 Act ernd thc Rrres thereundcr 'iolation

20. Then:fore, u,e find no rcason to interfere u,rth thc intpugnetl rrrcler datcrl 29.1O.2025. W.A.No.7257 of 2025, along rvith all connected zrpplications, is accorclingly dismissed. Therc shall be no order as l_o costs. SD/-V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGI ST //TRUE GOPY// ECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI. KOPP ULA GOPAL, Advocate [OPU Two CCs to GP FOR SOC|ALWELF ARE ,High Cou rt Telang One CC Two CD CoPies t Hyderabad Iourl HATLA YUGE NDER, Advocate [OPUC] to SRl. C r the State of To, 1 2 3 4 BM LS fi- I HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1257 ot 2025 i:.\ I E; [1[ 1- t\ tr. i/ ; DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS dEA %6\#