APHC010477222010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22107/2010 Between: 1. B.RAMANJULU NAIK,, S/O. BUKKA BADDE NAIK, CONDUCTOR (E.NO. 408826,) APSRTC, RAYACHOTI DEPOT, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARATE (CV-2) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN/JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA , KADAPA DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHAKRAYAPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC KADAPA DISTRICT, CHAKRAYAPET MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, RAYACHOTI DEPOT, RAYACHOTY, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling Caste Certificate of the petitioner by his Proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/427/N/2002 dt. 20-10-05 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 197 Social Welfare ( CV.2) Department dt. 1-11-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 28159 OF 2010 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 suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in R.Dis.No.C5/427/N/2002 dt. 20-10-05 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 197 Social Welfare ( CV.2) Department dt. 1-11-2008, pending disposal of the Writ petition IA NO: 4 OF 2010(WPMP 115373 OF 2010 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. W V S RAJESWARI 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.22107 of 2010 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the cancellation of Caste Certificate of the Petitioner vide proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/437/M/2002 dated 20.10.2005, as confirmed by Respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.197, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 01.11.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Biological parents of Petitioner Bazanthri Venkatesu and Bala Munemma were residents of Ukkusilavandla, H/o Kallurupalle village. When the Petitioner was aged about three (3) years, the biological parents gave the Petitioner in adoption to Bukke Venkata Naik @ Badde Naik and his wife Balamma of ‘Sugali Tribe’, which is notified as ‘Scheduled Tribe Community’. After adoption, the Petitioner had lived with his adopted parents in Sugali Thanda and is conversant with the customs and Sugali language. The Petitioner pursued graduation by studying in Scheduled Tribe Boys hostel. On the basis of the educational qualifications, the Petitioner was employed as Conductor in 4 APSRTC. 3. While so, one Girijan Seva Sangam submitted a petition on 24.05.2002 to Respondent No.2-District Collector alleging that the Petitioner belongs to ‘Mangali’ caste (B.C. Community) and has secured a job as Conductor in APSRTC by claiming to be belonging to the Sugali Scheduled Tribe community. On the basis of the complaint, the District Level Committee, Cuddapah had conducted an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry, Respondent No.2-the District Collector cancelled the caste certificate of the Petitioner vide impugned proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/437/M/2002 dated 20.10.2005. The same was confirmed by the State Government vide impugned G.O.Ms.No.197, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 01.11.2008. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.4, it is stated that though the Petitioner was given in adoption to tribal parents, the original status of the petitioner remains unchanged. It is further stated that the Petitioner had married a woman belonging to ‘Mangali’ community and the entries of his children in the school records were shown as ‘Mangali”. The plea of the 5 Petitioner that he had suffered all the dis-advantages of ‘Sugali’ community on account of adoption was denied and that the cancellation orders were passed after going through the enquiry report. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the learned Government Pleader furnished a scanned copy of the file. 5. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 6. The impugned order was passed by the District Collector pursuant to a petition submitted by the President of Girijana Seva Sangam on 24.05.2002 alleging that the Petitioner had originally belonged to ‘Mangali’(B.C. Community) and had secured a job as Conductor in ‘Sugali’ Scheduled Tribe quota. On receipt of the complaint, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rayachoti had furnished a Caste Certificate dated 30.10.1990 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet, Nativity Certificate and first page of service register of the Petitioner. 7. After receipt of all these documents, the issue was referred to Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet vide Ref.C5/437/M/02 dated 12.06.2002 for comprehensive report. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet submitted his report vide 6 Ref.C/234/2003 dated 15.05.2004 to Respondent No.2 in favour of the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the Report reads as under: „My enquiry reveals that, the individual was born on 20.06.1964. His original name was B.Ramanjaneyulu. His original parents, Sri B.Sanjeevaiah and Smt.Balamunemma were the native of Ukkusilavandlapalle H/o. Kallumpalle, Chakrayapet Mandal and belong to Mangali (BC) caste. When he was about two/three years-old, Sri B.Badde Naik alias Venkata Naik and Smt. B.Balamma of Kallurupalle Sugali Thanda belong to Sugali (ST) caste, who were issueless, developed affection towards this boy and decided to bring up the boy. From that age onwards, the boy used to be look-after by the ST parents. When the boy attained eight years age they decided to adopt the boy, as the original parents were poor, they agreed and the adoption was scribed into writing in the form of an adoption deed. It was not registered by the boy continued to be the adopted son of his ST parents, took care of by them educated by them. When enquired respectable persons of Sugali Thadna stated that, the boy lived with adoptive (ST) parents since his 2/ 3 years age after having been adopted and accepted by them as one of the ST people. He is following ST customs in his day-to-day life and can speak Sugali Language. They associated his assimilation in the ST community. The Panchayat Secretary, Sarpanch & M.P.T.C. of Kallurupalle village also affirmed the fact of adoption and stated that the individual, Sri B. Ramanjulu Naik is being 7 treated as Sugali (ST) caste in all walks of life. Further I submit that when enquired Sri B. Ramanjulu Naik deposed that at his very tender age, he was given for adoption to his ST parents, Sri B. Badde Naik alias Venkta Naik and Smt. B. Balamma, that since then, he was brought up by his ST parents, that his original BC parents are totally out of his memo. He also deposed that he never considered his as of 'Mangali caste as his original parents severed all ties with him when he was a very itself, that he suffered insults and humiliations as a normal ST Persons would suffer, that he obtained ST Sugali caste certificate in the year, 1990 and that the authorities after through examining the facts of the case in depth. He further deposed that he did not suppress the facts at any moment and that he cannot be penalized for a no fault of his. He also stated that one Sri V. Jaya Ram, President, A.P., Girijan Seva Sadan 2/150-2, Taraka Rama Nagar, Chemmumiahpet, Cuddapah threatened him and demanded Rs. 50000/- and when he refused, he lodged complaint against him. My confidential enquiries reveal that the individual, Sri B. Ramanjulı Naik was originally adopted by and lived with his adoptive (ST) parents since his three (3) years old and brought up by them. But the deed was accepted in the year, 1974 i.e. when he was eight (8) years old. It has no legal validity as it is unregistered. Local enquiries prove that his adoption genuine carried out as per the sections of the Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act. Further I submit that as seen from the educational certificates are individual his caste was mentioned as Indian Hindu Sugali. Finally I submit that I am of opinion of that the fact of 8 adoption of the individual his brought up and his leaving with his adoptive (ST) family is not disputed as proved from I enquiry.‟ 8. As per the report, the Petitioner was being taken care by his adopted Scheduled Tribe parents Sri B. Badde Naik @ Venkata Naik and Smt. B. Balamma of Sugali Thanda. When the Petitioner was aged about eight (8) years, the Petitioner was formally adopted and that the Petitioner was following Sugali Scheduled Tribe customs and can speak Sugali language. In the record furnished, the following documents were enclosed: Sl. No. Certificate Name Issuing Authority Name of father of the Petitioner 1. Nativity Certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet Dated 03.11.1986 B.Venkata Naik 2. Nativity certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet. Dated 13.02.1988 B.Venkata Naik 3. Nativity Certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet, Dated 20.08.1986 B.Venkata Naik 4. Nativity Certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet Dated 30.11.1990 B.Venkata Naik 5. Caste Certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet Dated 30.11.1990 B.Venkata Naik 6. Nativity Certificate Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet Dated 24.01.1987 B.Venkata Naik 7. Study Certificate Head Master, Municipal High School, Cuddapah Dated 18.10.1984 B.Venkata Naik 9 8. Study Certificate Head Master, Municipal High School, Cuddapah Dated 18.10.1984 B.Venkata Naik 9. Study Certificate Head MasteP.S.Ele.School, Kullurupalli, Cuddapah B.Venkata Naik 10. Study Certificate Head Master, Vidyasagar Upper Primary School,Viswanadhapuram, Cuddapah B.Venkata Naik 11. Board of Intermediate Education Joint/Deputy Secretary, (Examinations) Dated 03.03.1986 B.Venkata Naik 9. In all the above documents, the name of the adoptee father, Sri B.Venkata Naik was mentioned as the father of the Petitioner. In the enquiry report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, statements of respectable persons (a total 29 people) of Sugali Thanda were also recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 18.03.2003. It was stated in unanimity that the Petitioner was adopted by Sri B.Venkata Naik and Smt. B. Balamma and raised in Sugali Thanda. 10. Despite this overwhelming evidence that the Petitioner had resided with adopted parents from a tender age of two or three years in the Sugali Thanda, which is backed up by the statements of the respectable persons in the Sugali Thanda coupled with the certificates, the impugned orders came to be passed cancelling 10 the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner. 11. It is pertinent to note that even in the impugned orders, the only reason to cancel the Caste Certificate was that the adoption would not confer ST status to the Petitioner in view of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 2(2) indeed excludes the applicability of the Act to the Scheduled tribe community, but the customary laws and usage do prevail in the said ST communities, permitting adoption. These customary laws are recognized to be „law‟ under Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the Respondents that there is no custom or usage to adopt a child or that there is a prohibition in the “sugali community”. In the absence of any such claim, the reasoning in the impugned orders can only be termed as perverse. 12. As regards non-registration of adoption deed, the same is not a compulsory registerable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Even under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, registration only gives a presumption of adoption under Section 16 thereof, but the same is not mandatory even under the said Act. 11 13. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence as mentioned in the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, Chakrayapet, the impugned orders cannot be sustained either on law or on fact. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings R.Dis.No.C5/437/M/2002 dated 20.10.2005 issued by Respondent No.2 as confirmed by Respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.197, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 01.11.2008 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 08.04.2026 KLP