1 APHC010498392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 27105, 27106, 27275 and 27272 of 2026 WRIT PETITION No: 27105 of 2026 Between: 1. SINGARI RAJESH, A ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, S 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2 2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3 The Court made the following Common Order: As the issues raised in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. The petitioners are claiming Scheduled Tribe status as they belonged to Yenity Kondhs community. It is admitted that, as per the Presidential Order, the community to which the petitioners belong is categorized as a ‘Scheduled Tribe’ at Sl.No. 16 in Schedule Part- I. It is admitted that the petitioners sought issuance of Scheduled Tribe Community Certificates and accordingly submitted the representations to the competent authority. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent i.e., the District Collector had decided that the petitioners do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community vide Order dated 08.05.2026 had determined that the petitioners do not file any valid documentary evidence in support of their claim and that the petitioners could not satisfy the District Level Scrutiny Committee by demonstrating Socio-Cultural and ethnographic affinity with the Kondh tribe. As such, the District Collector rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of Scheduled Tribe certificates to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were born in the Scheduled Tribe families belonging to the Yenity Kondh community and that, on account of the development and upliftment of their standard of living, some of them had migrated from the tribal area and as 4 such, this migration cannot be held against the petitioners while determining their community status and issuance of the relevant community certificate. 5. It is further submitted that the District Collector has not granted adequate opportunity to the petitioners for submitting their case and had relied upon the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali. It is also submitted that the District Level Scrutiny Committee did not grant any opportunity of hearing and had conducted the enquiry in a perfunctory manner by holding that the petitioners do not belong to Yenity Kondh (Scheduled Tribe) Community. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have a strong case for establishing their community and also intend to place before the appellate authority the prevailing law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Millind and others.,1 whereby the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with similarly placed issues and had also determined the manner in which the Yenity community of any tribe would have to be decided and determined. It is admitted that the District Collector failed to appreciate the law and has passed erroneous order. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the 1st respondent is in the process of 1 (2001)1 SCC 4 5 issuing a Government Order with regard to the ethnographic affinity of Yenity Khonds in the area. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioners ought to have filed a Revision under Section 7(2) of the Act before the 1st respondent and, accordingly, submits the matter would have to be remanded to the 1st respondent. 9. The issue raised in these writ petitions, aggrieved by the orders passed by the District Collector, would have to be agitated before the 1st respondent by way of revision under the Act and the Rules. The 1st respondent shall have to conduct a proper enquiry and also take into consideration the submissions of the petitioners and the judgments relied upon by them before deciding the community status of the petitioners. The 1st respondent shall also have to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to submit any additional material for establishing their social status insofar as their community is concerned. 10. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by leaving it open for the petitioners to file the review under Section 7(2) of the Act within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. On filing of the review/Appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act, the 1st respondent shall consider the same on its own merits by providing an 6 opportunity of hearing and by taking into consideration any additional material submits by the petitioners. 12. At any rate, the 1st respondent shall have to complete their enquiry and pass necessary orders within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 22.09.2026 RJS/GCD 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 27105, 27106, 27272 and 27275 of 2026 Dt: 22.09.2026 RJS/GCD 8