1 APHC010517242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 25140/2017 and 10185 of 2020 W.P.No.25140 of 2017 Between: 1. M. NARAHARI BABU, S/O. M.C. OBAIAH,, OCC: WORKING AS GENERAL MANAGER ( LEGAL ) ,ZONAL OFFICE, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA CHENNAI & R/O. FLAT NO. B-8/10, 3RD FLOOR, FCI QUARTERS SAF GAMES VILLAGE, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI THULIUM MANDAL, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHITTOOR CHITTOOR, DISTRICT ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the lst respondent in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner without taking into consideration of his representation dated 20.06.2017 is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the 1st respondent made in G.O.M.s No. 64, TRIBAL WELFARE ( CV2) DEPARTMENT dated 24.07.2017, and 2 consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner date 20-06-2017 by affording opportunity. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 31171 OF 2017 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 impugned orders of the 1st respondent made in G.O.M.s No. 64, TRIBAL WELFARE ( CV2) DEPARTMENT dated 24.07.2017 pending disposal of the main Writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to Implead the proposed Respondent as Respondent No.3 in the W.P.No.25140 of 2017 and all it's consequential proceedings pending before this Hon'bie Court, in the Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S.EXCELLENTIA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 3 The Court made the following Common Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the 1st respondent, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, whereby the caste certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled by the 2nd respondent. 2. Sri P. Girish Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as General Manager (Legal) in Food Corporation of India as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the 3rd respondent in the year 1995 by submitting the caste certificate issued by the then Tahsildar. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to Valmiki caste and that the said caste is classified as Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner subsequently joined the service of the 3rd respondent, and the social status of the petitioner was sought to be verified. Accordingly, 2nd respondent directed the R.D.O., Tirupathi, to verify the same. It is submitted that the District Level Scrutiny Committee had submitted a report dated 17.05.2008 to the District Collector without conducting any enquiry as per the A.P (Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. It is submitted that Section 5 and Rule 9(3) of the Rules would contemplate the required procedure to be followed, which was not duly followed by the 2nd respondent. 4 4. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent had considered the report submitted by the District Level Scrutiny Committee and, on 04.11.2008, issued proceedings declaring that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe-Valmiki community. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, at para No.5 of the impugned order, has observed that both sides were heard and dismissed the appeal. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not submit his arguments before the 1st respondent. However, the impugned order would indicate that the petitioner had appeared in person. This Court called for the record from the 1st respondent and has noticed that the petitioner did not appear before the 1st respondent. Considering the same, the interim orders granted in the Writ Petition were extended until further orders. 6. It is also submitted that the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent would amply clarify the ambiguity. The attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph No.6 of the counter-affidavit, which, according to the petitioner, makes it clear that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the 1st respondent had considered the submissions of the petitioner, as 5 seen from paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order, and as such, the petitioner does not deserve any relief from this court. 8. Heard Sri P. Girish Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 9. The short point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings Dated 24.07.2017 can be sustained in law when the record would indicate that the petitioner did not appear for hearing before the 1st respondent and when the petitioner had addressed a letter annexing a medical certificate regarding his inability to appear on the proposed date of hearing. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent would also amply clarify that the matter was treated as heard on the ground that it was an old case. 10. Evidently, the 1st respondent has not heard the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for reconsidering the issue afresh by granting ample opportunity to the petitioner and also an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order of the 1st respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for 6 consideration afresh, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, including an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. 12. As W.P.No. 25140 of 2017 is allowed, the impugned proceedings challenged in W.P.No. 10185 of 2020 also deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.09.2026 RJS/GCD 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 25140/2017 and 10185 of 2020 Dt: 09.09.2026 RJS/GCD