1 APHC010049812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3517/2026 Between: Jakkala Pandavulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INAPURAPU SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents 4 for not securing the caste certificate of victim/petitioner in SC ST SC No 146/2019 in the court of the Honble Spl Judge for Trial of cases and under SCs STs POA Act East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram from the 3rd respondent in the light of judgement of Honble Supreme court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional commissioner Tribal development and others The Honble Supreme Court through a Constitution Bench held in Dayaram 2 v Sudhir Batham and Others is bad arbitrary illegal unconstitutional and in clear violation of Articles 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No 2 and 4 to secure caste certificate of the petitioner/victim Jakkala Pandavulu from the 3rd respondent and file the same in the court of the Honble Spl Judge for Trial of cases and under SCs STs POA Act East Godavar at Rajamahendravaram in the interest of justice and pass such other order(s)…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri I. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No. 4 has not obtained the caste certificate of the petitioner/victim in S.C., S.T., S.C. No. 146 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, from respondent No. 3/Revenue Divisional Officer, in the light of the settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. 4. Per contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education Department, dated 23.09.1970, as amended from time to time, if the petitioner/victim resides within a Scheduled Area or Agency Area, the competent authority to issue a certificate certifying that the victim belongs to the SC or ST community is the Tahsildar. If the victim resides outside the Scheduled Area, the certificate has to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 29069 of 2016, and the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 26.03.2024, 3 holding that the grievance of the petitioner had been redressed by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner was granted a certificate by the Tahsildar on 01.10.2016 certifying that he belongs to the SC community. 6 Incontrovertibly, the petitioner/victim in the alleged case under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act belongs to a non-Scheduled Area. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri1 wherein, at paragraph No. 8, it was held that the State Government has to publish appropriate rules in the Official Gazette in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development2. 7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham3 at paragraph No. 22, lauded the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court by invoking its powers under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil supra held that an application for grant of a social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Deputy Collector, or Deputy Commissioner, and that the certificate shall be issued by the said officer and not by an officer at the Taluk or Mandal level. 9. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, if the certificate issued by the Tahsildar is relied on by the prosecution before the Sessions Court during trial, the learned Trial Court might rely on the judgment 1 AIR 1997 SC 2046 2 AIR 1995 SC 94 3 (2012) 1 SCC 333 4 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil supra and reject the said certificate. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil supra, the caste certificate or social status certificate shall be issued by respondent No. 3 and not by respondent No. 5 inasmuch as the petitioner is residing in non-schedule area. 11. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to issue the caste certificate/social status certificate in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 shall obtain the said certificate for the purpose of investigation and file the same before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall take on record the certificate issued by respondent No. 3. 12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 24.02.2026 KMS 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3517 of 2026 Date: 24.02.2026 KMS 119