ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ or order or direction more particularly a writ of certiorari calling for all the connected records including the impugned order of the first respondent in Re.C5.3392/96 dated 18-2-1997 and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
2. Sri B. Udaya Bhaskar Rao, the writ petitioner had narrated the factual aspects in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit and the writ petitioner also filed a reply affidavit explaining certain additional facts.
3. Sri K.G. Krishna Moorthy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this court through the impugned order and would contend that even from the very reading of the order it is clear that the writ petitioner was not afforded with proper opportunity. Learned counsel also had brought to the notice of this Court that on self same allegations as against the writ petitioner a criminal case CC No. 463/97 was filed on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore and after conducting the trial, the learned Magistrate recorded acquittal by an order dated 28th November 2003. The learned counsel also pointed out that the said matter was carried by way of Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2004 on the file of this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court even at the stage of admission by an order dated 24-9-2004. The learned counsel also had pointed out apart from this aspect of the matter in para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it was specifically pleaded that the family members of the writ petitioner are not having good terms with one Ramaiah and basing on his complaint the then Tahsildar, Nellore issued a notice directing his sister B. Lakshmi Rajyam to appear before him with all original records including the caste certificate issued by the authorities and after conducting a detailed enquiry in the locality and after recording the statements of the elders of the locality the said competent authority came to the conclusion that his father belongs to Yanadi community and the certificates issued in favour of his sister and brothers including the writ petitioner are in accordance with law. The learned counsel pointed out that there is no specific denial to this aspect. The counsel would contend that inasmuch as an enquiry relating to the same family member inclusive of the other family members of the writ petitioner had been conducted in relation to the caste certificate issued by the competent authority and it was held that they belong to Yanadi community and the certificate issued in this regard is in accordance with law, the same question cannot be raised again since it would amount to harassing the petitioner and the family members of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel places strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, the Govt. of A.P., by its Secretary, GAD (Special) Department, Hyderabad and Anr. v. R.K. Ragala, Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID) PCR Cell, Hyderabad and Anr., (D.B.).
4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare had taken this Court through the allegations made in detail in the counter affidavit and also the reasons recorded in the impugned order and would contend that since alternative remedy is available the writ petitioner can definitely avail the alternative remedy and in this view of the matter also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the counsel.
6. In the impugned order dt. 18-2-1997 in relation to the caste verification it was stated
“On perusal of the report and record of enquiry of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore and the school records, it is quite evident that the alleged persons have tampered the Study Certificates issued by the Head Master, Municipal Elementary School, Fatherkhanpet, Nellore and Head Mistress, Sri Kasturi Devi Girls High School, Nellore and Head Mistress, V.R. High School (Aided) Nellore combined Study Certificates by inserting the caste as Yanadi and obtained false Caste Certificates as Yanadi and grabbed the benefits under S.T. Quota and cheated the Government.
In view of the circumstances explained above, I have come to the conclusion that the above mentioned five individuals belong to Bestha caste, but not Yanadi as claimed tampered by them. Hence, in exercise of the powers conferred in me in G.O.Ms. No. 282, Social Welfare (J2) Department, dated 19-12-1988, I here by cancel the Yanadi Caste Certificates issued by the then Tahsildars, Nellore to:
(1) Bathala Mohan Rao in F.Dis.6931, dt.22-5-78 and 13-11-73
(2) Bathala Madhava Rao in F.Dis.140/ 89, dt.27-10-89
(3) Bathala Udaya Bhaskar in F.Dis.3586/78 dt. 10-7-78
(4) Bathala Lakshmi Rajyam in F.Dis.3593/72, dt.10-7-72,
of Nellore town and confirm the caste of the said persons including Sri Bethala Damodar Rao alias Dinakar Rao and the entire family of Sri Bathala Polaiah as ‘Bestha’ which is classified as BC ‘A’.
7. It is no doubt recorded that Kum. B. Lakshmi Rajyam and Sri B. Mohan Rao had not attended the personal hearing and further they did not produce any documentary evidence in regard to their caste claim. However, while concluding as No. 4 B. Lakishmi Rajyam had been also referred to. It is the stand of the writ petitioner that his father Bathaja Polaiah was born and brought up at Kota village in Nellore District and they belong to Yanadi Community which is scheduled tribe. It was a|so specifically averred that his mother Smt. Ramanamma belongs to ‘Bestha’ community and thus his father’s marriage is an inter caste one. It is further stated that his father shifted his residence from Kota to Nellore 15 years back for the sake of education of the children and settled at Fatherkhanpet, Nellore town. The Revenue authorities conducted a detailed enquiry with regard to the family of the writ petitioner and the social status and concluded that they belong to Yanadi Community and to that effect the authorities issued caste certificates time and again. It is also stated that the father of the writ petitioner was not a literate and his mother admitted him and his brothers and sister in the school and it seems that she revealed her caste at the time of admission and the same had been entered in the school records by mistake. Later, they made a representation to the authorities for issuance of caste certificate on the strength of their father’s caste. The then Tahsildar on 1-9-1973 conducted an enquiry and issued caste certificate on 13-11 -1973 to the elder brothers of the writ petitioner Sri Madhava Rao, Mohan Rao and also his sister B. Lakshmi Rajyam. Likewise, the authorities also issued caste certificate in favour of the writ petitioner. It is also stated that one Sri S. Ramaiah who is having some grievance against the family members of the writ petitioner gave a false complaint to the effect that his family belongs to Bestha community not falling under Yanadi and on the basis of the said complaint, the then Tahsildar issued notice in Rc.B3/822/84, dated 13-5-1984 directing the sister of the writ petitioner B. Lakshmi Rajyam who had been also referred to in the present impugned proceeding and shown as No. 4 at the conclusion of the impugned order, to appear before him on 18-5-1984 with original records including the caste certificate issued by the authorities and the sister of the writ petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar, Nellore and who conducted a detailed enquiry in the locality and recorded the statements of the elders of the locality and came to the conclusion that the father of the writ petitioner belongs to Yanadi community and certificates issued in this regard in favour of his sister, brothers inclusive of the writ petitioner are in order and hence the social status of the writ petitioner is only Yanadi community. It is also stated that one Mohan Rao a blood relative of the said Ramaiah filed a representation before the 1st respondent on 1-6-1996 complaining that the caste certificate as Schedule Tribe of the writ petitioner is not a genuine one. It is also stated that the elder brother of the writ petitioner filed a criminal case against Devarajulu, B/o. S. Mohan Rao and his family members when they attacked his brothers and it is stated that the criminal case No. 26/96 is pending before the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore for final adjudication. It is also stated that the same is pending disposal. Several other allegations in detail have also been made in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
8. It is further averred that the authorities had conducted an ex parte enquiry without giving the writ petitioner, his brothers and sister an opportunity and concluded that the social status of the writ petitioner is not a genuine one and issued the impugned proceeding.
9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the complaint made by Mohan Rao relating to the Caste Certificate and other details had been mentioned at length. The other allegations also specifically had been denied. Further, in para 5 of the counter-affidavit, in reply to para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by the writ petitioner, it was specifically pleaded that
“it is to submit that it is a fact a notice was issued to Smt. B. Lakshmi Rajyam the sister of the writ petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Nellore to attend enquiry on 18-5-1994 at 3.00 p.m., on the allegation report received from the Pondicherry Government in verification of genuineness. But the writ petitioner obtained certificate as ‘Yanadi’ from Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore dated 10-7-1978 as per T.C. No. 356 and Taluk F.Dis.No. 3586/72 by producing false information. Hence, the writ petitioner is continuously cheating the revenue authorities stage by stage by showing his imposted study certificates, with the caste of “Yanadi”. Hence it is not a fact that the ‘Yanadi’ caste certificate issued to the writ petitioner and other his brothers and sisters are not in accordance with law. The certificates issued by time to time by the Revenue authorities are found as bogus one. Hence the social status of the writ petitioner said to be ‘Yanadi’ community is not a genuine one.”
It was also further pleaded in para 6 of the counter-affidavit that as reported by the Inspector of Police, CIRD P.C.R. Cell, Nellore Zone, who investigated the matter and reported that the writ petitioner completed his entire education during the period from 1966 to 1984 with the caste as “Bestha”, but obtained caste certificate as Yanadi from the then Tahsildar Nellore on 1 -7-1978 and secured Lecturer post through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and got appointed on 17-9-1987 and at present he is working as Lecturer in Economics at Government Degree College, Rapur. Specific stand was taken that in view of the fact that the writ petitioner belongs to Bestha community and does not fall under Scheduled Tribe category but falls under BC group, the writ petitioner is not entitled to secure a job under Scheduled Tribe quota. Further, specific stand was taken that it is not a fact that the revenue authorities conducted an ex parte enquiry without an opportunity. A notice was issued to attend personal hearing before the Joint Collector on 17-2-1977 and the writ petitioner and his brother B. Damodar Rao attended the personal hearing and they did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their caste claim. In para 8 of the counter affidavit, in reply to several of the allegations raised in the grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the application, had been specifically denied.
10. A reply affidavit in detail has been filed narrating certain additional facts and also subsequent events. The acquittal recorded in C.C. No. 463/97 by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, which had been confirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2004 also had been specifically referred to. In Government of A.P., by its Secretary, GAD (Special) Department, Hyderabad v. R.K. Ragala, Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID) PCR Cell, Hyderabad (1 supra) a Division Bench of this Court held in relation to social status certificate that show cause notice issued to first respondent (a Government employee) to show cause as to why the certificate issued declaring him as ‘Konda Kapu’ should not be cancelled. High Court can interfere on the question whether a citizen can be subjected to repeated enquiries even though High Court will not interfere on mere show cause notice, Already two valid enquiries were held in which he was declared as ‘Konda Kapu’ and another enquiry amounts to holding of repeated enquiries and no fraud alleged to have been played by first respondent in the previous enquiries. Holding of repeated enquiries on the same subject concluded long ago amounts to harassment and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present matter it is not in dispute or controversy that in relation to Lakshmi Rajyam an enquiry had already been conducted by the concerned Tahsildar-competent authority and had arrived at a conclusion that she belongs to Yanadi community. Hence, it is clear that at a particular point of time relating to the social status of the father of the writ petitioner, an enquiry was held by the competent authority and a finding had been recorded in this regard. This aspect of the matter is not under serious attack. Apart from this aspect of the matter, on the self-same grounds prosecution was launched by filing a charge sheet against the writ petitioner for the offences under Sections 420,182,197,198, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 11 of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Community Certificates Act and the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, on appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 15 and also Exs.P-1 to P-33 recorded findings in detail and recorded acquittal by a judgment dated 28th November 2003. The same was confirmed by this Court inasmuch as the Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 2004 preferred as against the said judgment of acquittal had been dismissed at the stage of admission on 29-4-2004.
11. No doubt the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare made a serious attempt to convince this Court that inasmuch as alternative remedy is available, either the writ petitioner can be driven to the alternative remedy or if this Court is of the opinion that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded, liberty may be given to the competent authority to initiate enquiry afresh under the provisions of the Act. The stand taken by the learned Government Pleader had been seriously controverted by the counsel for the writ petitioner on the ground that inasmuch as in relation to the sister of the writ petitioner already an enquiry had been conducted, conducting of repeated enquiries relating to the social status would amount to harassment and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As can be seen from the material available on record and also in the light of the stand taken by the writ petitioner himself in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the caste had been recorded as Bestha evidently for the reason that the mother of the writ petitioner belongs to Bestha community.
12. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order shows that statements of several witnesses had been recorded and the statements in fact had been referred to while making the impugned order. However, specific stand was taken that no reasonable opportunity had been given. It is no doubt true that in relation to the writ petitioner, specifically relating to social status, no prior enquiry was conducted but, however, the writ petitioner is placing strong reliance on enquiry conducted in relation to his sister Lakshmi Rajyam. Taking over all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and also the subsequent events of the acquittal recorded in the criminal case which had been confirmed in the criminal appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of driving the writ petitioner to invoke the alternative remedy, the impugned order be quashed giving liberty to the competent authority under the Act to proceed afresh with the enquiry if the competent authority is required to do so.
13. In the light of the facts and circumstances referred to supra, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is needless to observe that in the event of competent authority proposing to conduct an enquiry, the same to be initiated and to be completed within a reasonable time preferably within a period of six months. No orders to costs.