APHC010481382009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT APPEAL NO: 127/2009 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 30.12.2008 in W.P.No.6945 of Between: 1. DOKKULURI CHITTI BABU, S/O. D. MANGAIAH R/O. MADRI, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT KAKINADA. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 253 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings Ref.No.C 15.12.2000 issued by the second respondent and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 26.03.2002 issued by the first respondent Counsel for the Appellant: 1. R K ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 19.08.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT APPEAL NO: 127/2009 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 30.12.2008 in W.P.No.6945 of 2002. DOKKULURI CHITTI BABU, S/O. D. MANGAIAH R/O. MADRI, KHAMMAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPELLANT AND GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 253 OF 2009 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 operation of the proceedings Ref.No.C-5/9605/91 d 15.12.2000 issued by the second respondent and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 26.03.2002 issued by the first respondent. Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent(S): CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 19.08.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred DOKKULURI CHITTI BABU, S/O. D. MANGAIAH R/O. MADRI, ...APPELLANT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT(S): that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 5/9605/91 dated 15.12.2000 issued by the second respondent and G.O.Ms.No.35, dated CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 2 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.6945 of 2002, the petitioner therein preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. The writ petition was filed impugning the proceedings vide Ref.No. C5/9605/91, dated 15.12.2000 issued by the District Collector, East Godavari District and the G.O.Ms.No.35, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.03.2002 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was born in Tadepalli village, Maredumilli Mandal, East Godavari District, a scheduled area and he belongs to Valmiki caste and was brought up amongst Valmikis in scheduled area. That he was appointed as Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India on 24.09.1990 under scheduled Tribe quota and was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant in 1994 and as Assistant Administrative Officer in 2001. That pursuant to the letter addressed by Life Insurance Corporation, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Maredumilli conducted an enquiry with regard to genuinity of the social status of the petitioner and initially issued proceedings dated 17.07.1992 confirming that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe. That thereafter, further enquiry was HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 3 conducted by the MRO and Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Rampachodavaram and based on the reports submitted by them, the respondent no.2-District Collector initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (SC,ST & BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rules made thereunder. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to appear before the District Level Scrutiny committee and accordingly the petitioner appeared and represented that Malas in agency tracts are treated as equivalent to Valmiki and therefore, the caste certificate issued to him does not suffer from any infirmity. The Committee in its report held that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe. The respondent no.-2 by taking into account the report as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner into consideration passed orders dated 15.12.2000 declaring that the petitioner belongs to schedule caste and not scheduled tribe. The appeal preferred by petitioner against the orders passed by respondent no.2 was dismissed vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 26.03.2002. Assailing the order of respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.1-State, this writ petition came to be filed. 4. The respondents refuted the claim made by the petitioner by filing counter-affidavit inter alia contending that there is ample record maintained HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 4 by the authorities to disclose that family of the petitioner belongs to Mala community, a schedule caste, but not scheduled tribe. Further, the petitioner did not claim the status of scheduled tribe till completion of his graduation and for the first time, he claimed that status for appointment. That the enquiry conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statue giving ample opportunity to the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner belong to Mala community and the petitioner did not place any material to show that neither he nor his family members practice the customs and tenets of valmiki community. In view of the same, the District Level Scrutiny Committee submitted report holding that the petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe and accordingly the respondent no.2 passed orders and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent no.1 finding no merit. There is neither impropriety nor procedural lacunae in passing the orders and prayed to dismissed the writ petition. 5. Upon perusing the material and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this writ appeal. HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 5 6. Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned senior counsel, representing Sri R.K.Acharyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. 7. Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit and grounds of appeal would contend that on the letter addressed by Life Insurance Corporation to enquire into the genuineness of the social status of the petitioner, the MRO, initially issued proceedings dated 17.07.1992 confirming that the petitioner belongs to schedule tribe and therefore, ordering further enquiry regarding the same issue is illegal and unwarranted. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the reports of the MRO and the RDO which were relied on by the District Collector for passing the impugned order were never supplied to the appellant and he was not made aware of the contents of the reports and thus there was flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, however the learned single Judge mistook the facts of the case in proper perspective and came to an erroneous conclusion that non supplying the reports does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the voluminous documentary evidence which would show that the caste names HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 6 ‘Valmiki’ and ‘Mala’ are interchangeable and therefore, mere mention of caste of grandfather of the appellant as ‘Mala’ in the death certificate cannot be taken to mean that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste but not Scheduled Tribe and further the material would further disclose that all the relatives of the appellant are scheduled tribes. The learned senior counsel would further contend that since the appellant had prosecuted his studies up to graduation in agency tract there was no requirement of showing his social status as scheduled tribe and hence not claiming such social status till completion of graduation would not be a valid ground to decide the social status of the appellant as Schedule Caste. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the learned single Judge had failed to appreciate the material in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare would contend that the reports of the MRO and the RDO were considered as primary material only and the contents of the reports were not taken on their face value for passing the impugned orders and thus there was no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged and the learned single Judge had rightly came to the right conclusion in that regard. He would further contend that the HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 7 death certificate of the grandfather of the appellant clearly shows that he belongs to Mala caste, a scheduled caste, and the District Collector upon considering the material placed before him had rightly came to the conclusion regarding the social status of the appellant being scheduled caste by giving cogent and valid reasons for reaching such conclusion. He would further contend that the order passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Appeal. 9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. The contentions and material would indicate that the appellant claiming his social status as ‘Valmiki’, a scheduled tribe community, secured employment in Life Insurance Corporation (for short, ‘the employer’). The employer addressed a letter to the MRO to inquire into the genuineness of the social status of the appellant. Pursuantly, the MRO submitted a report vide Ref.No.1221/91, dated 17.07.1992 to the District Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer, declaring the caste of the appellant as Valmiki. Thereafter, the MRO and the RDO made further inquiry and submitted reports to the District Collector and thereupon the District Collector initiated HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 8 proceedings under the A.P.(SC,ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules made there under. 11. In view of the specific contention raised by learned senior counsel regarding violation of principles of natural justice since reports of the MRO and the RDO were not furnished to the appellant, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the matter, unless the said contention is proved false. 12. The contention regarding non-submission of reports of the MRO and the RDO has not been denied by the respondents. The learned single Judge discredited the contention of violation of principles of natural justice holding that the reports would at the most constitute the basis for initiation of proceedings. 13. The material discloses that initially the MRO sent report to the District Collector through Revenue Divisional Officer holding that the social status of the appellant is scheduled tribe. The report shows the appellant’s Geonological Tree, Death statement copy of 1942, school certificate, Mediator Report, Sarpanch Report, Study certificate, Mandal Revenue Inspector Report and copy of the Aduggal were enclosed with it. HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 9 14. Thereafter, further inquiry was ordered and pursuantly the MRO and the RDO submitted their reports. After further inquiry, the MRO and the RDO seems have submitted reports adverse to the earlier report submitted by MRO. It is no doubt true that the appellant had been given opportunity to submit explanation besides personal hearing by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. However, the appellant must be made known the new facts and circumstances that came to the knowledge of the authorities and the reason for submission of reports that the appellant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, contrary to the earlier report submitted by the MRO as per which the appellant belongs to Schedule Tribe community. 15. In Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: ” It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend 1.(2023) 11 SCC 130 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 10 oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non- disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.” 16. The contents of the reports may not have been taken into consideration on their face value, but, the new facts that came to the knowledge of MRO & RDO that made them to tilt their earlier decision must necessarily be brought to the notice of the appellant so as to enable him to offer his explanation buttressing his version regarding his social status. 17. The learned single Judge failed to consider the peculiar circumstance that was glaring on the face of the record and swayed away by the general rule that the reports at the most constitute primary material of inquiry and hence no need to supply them to the appellant. 18. Since violation of principles of natural justice is glaring on the face, the orders passed by respondent nos.1 and 2 are wholly unsustainable and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. 19. In the above view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge impugned herein. Consequently, the orders dated 15.12.2000 passed by respondent no.2 vide Ref. HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.127 of 2009 11 No.C5/9605/91 and the G.O.Ms.No.35, Social Welfare (CV.2) Department, dated 26.03.2002 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall stand set aside. The authorities, if they desire to inquire into the social status of the appellant, they are at liberty to do so, however by supplying the material such as reports and also by providing fair and reasonable opportunity and time to the appellant to put forward his defence besides providing him personal hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR