APHC010492622023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1278 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-8 [3584] Chirlam Somalamma ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 24th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: MR.R SIVA SAI SWARUP Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR REVENUE, GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE *** JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against order, dated 23.08.2023, in W.P.No.21668 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge relegated the writ petitioner to avail remedy of appeal by disposing the writ petition. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner preferred subject writ petition seeking following relief: “…..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly respondents 3 to 6, rejecting issuance of a Caste/Community Certificate, vide Transaction ID- 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 CGC230606066323 in the name of Lanke Geeteshu Thayaru Venkat who is a minor son of the Petitioner without verifying the records nor perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner as the parents of the minor boy Caste ST, without following the mandate procedure as required under the Law, all are illegal, unlawful, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, to set aside the Order passed through on line Transanction ID-CGC230606066323 in the name of petitioner minor son Lanke Geeteshu Thayaru Venkat in the interest of justice and to pass such….” 3. It is the case of appellant before learned Single Judge that they belong to Konda Kapu caste notified as Scheduled Tribe, accordingly, both writ petitioner as well as her husband were issued caste certificates by Tahsildar, Rajavommangi Mandal, East Godavari, dated 08.09.2020 and 20.12.2010, respectively, recognising them as Konda Kapu to Sl.No.13 (ST). That even their minor son, namely Lanke Geeteshu Thayaru Venkat, was also issued caste certificate, dated 20.06.2018, to the same effect. However, in view of bifurcation of Districts, their village was carved out from the erstwhile district and brought within the newly formed Alluri Sitharama Raju District. Accordingly, an application dated 06.06.2023, was made seeking issuance of a fresh caste certificate in favour of her minor son. However, the said application came to be rejected, thus, aggrieved by the same, she preferred the writ petition. 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 4. Before learned Single Judge, appellant/writ petitioner had contended that rejection was bad in law, inasmuch as neither reasons were assigned for such rejection, nor there was any decision communicated on merits of the matter, except for issuing online rejection, and further that the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), in particular, Section 5, was not adhered to in stricto senso. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that as against order of rejection, since appeal is provided under Section 7 of the Act, the writ petition was not maintainable. 6. In those circumstances, learned Single Judge relegated the appellant to avail remedy of appeal, as provided under Section 7 of the Act, on filing such appeal, the District Collector was directed to consider the matter on merits and dispose the same in time bound manner. 7. Heard Mr.R.Leela Sai Sampath, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for appellant, 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing for respondents. 8. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contends that when application was made seeking caste certificate in terms of Section 3 of the Act and the Rules, it was incumbent on primary authority to examine the relevant documents furnished before taking any decision on the matter, rather, strangely in present case, the application was summarily rejected without assigning any reasons, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that online rejection order did not even provide the reasons for rejection, which is sine qua non. Therefore, it is contended that mere availability of alternative remedy would not bar invoking jurisdiction of writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thus, learned Single Judge was not justified in relegating appellant to avail alternative remedy of appeal. In support of said submissions, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan1 and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority2. 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 = 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 9. Opposing the said submissions, learned Government Pleaders appearing for respondents, tried to support the order of learned Single Judge. 10. We have gone through the record and considered submissions of learned counsels for both parties. 11. In compliance with the order, dated 26.02.2024, passed in this Appeal, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents produced endorsement, dated 15.07.2023, issued by Tahsildar, Rajavommangi Mandal, by which application of minor son of petitioner was rejected. 12. As seen from the said endorsement, it is apparent that application came to be rejected merely on the ground that applicant had not attended the inquiry along with original documentary evidence supporting the claim. In those circumstances, this Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating the manner in which notice was served on appellant calling upon her to attend inquiry. 13. 3rd respondent has filed counter-affidavit accordingly. In the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated as under: “4. I submit that the said request was made with a view to verify the original documents and the genuineness of the 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 documents relied upon in the online application before taking a decision on the community certificate claim. However, Sri Lanke Vijayakumar did not attend the Tahsildar's Office with the original documentary evidence for verification. 5. I submit that on further verification of the records presently available in the Tahsildar's Office, it is submitted that no separate written Form-IV notice issued in respect of the application of the minor applicant, and no separate acknowledgment/service proof of such Form-IV notice, is available in the office record. 6. I submit that the communication made to the father of the minor applicant was therefore by way of telephone contact, requesting him to attend the office with the original documentary evidence. The father did not attend the office with the original documents for verification. 7. I submit that subsequently, the application was rejected and an endorsement dated 15.07.2023 was issued from the Tahsildar's Office, Rajavommangi. The said endorsement records that the father had been directed to attend the enquiry with original documentary evidence supporting his son's caste claim, but had not attended. The endorsement also informed the aggrieved person regarding the remedy of appeal before the District Collector within thirty days under the applicable rules. 8. It is respectfully submitted that the rejection endorsement dated 15.07.2023 did not record any final finding declaring that the minor applicant did not belong to the Kondakapu Scheduled Tribe community. The application was rejected in the circumstances then prevailing, particularly in view of the non-production of the original documentary evidence required for verification” 14. Perusal of aforesaid statement clearly indicates that no notice was served on appellant calling her to attend the inquiry. Further, 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 endorsement, dated 15.07.2023, rejecting the application also did not record any finding with regard to social status of minor applicant. 15. As seen from the record, it appears minor son of appellant was already issued caste certificate, dated 20.06.2018, before bifurcation of Districts. Therefore, there is no reason for respondents for rejecting the said application without examining aforesaid material, which was available along with the application. 16. Since we are satisfied that order of rejection was passed without even issuing notice to appellant, on this ground alone, order of rejection needs to be set aside as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. 17. The order of learned Single Judge relegating appellant to avail remedy of appeal is, thus, unsustainable, and accordingly, we hereby set aside the same. 18. At this stage, when we are about to remand the matter back to the primary authority, i.e., the Tehsildar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, on instructions, submitted that necessary inquiry would be undertaken on 07.10.2026, by Tahsildar, Rajavommangi, on which date appellant, along with her minor son, can attend the inquiry, and after verifying the records and 8 HCJ & CGR, J. W.A.No.1278 of 2023 documents annexed along with the application, appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. 19. Thus, we direct appellant to appear before 3rd respondent Tahsildar, on aforesaid date, enabling him to undertake the exercise of inquiry and pass appropriate orders. 20. With the above observations, writ appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. cs