APHC010427 242005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 21686 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-47 [3506] Suluru Lakshmi Narasaiah and anr. ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The Prl. Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Social Welfare (CV- 1) Department and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.M S R CHANDRA MURTHY Advocate for Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 9th February 2026 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, especially in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the initiation of the second inquiry by issuing the notice in Form-VI in Rc.C5(M) 9148/98, dated 21.6.2005, of the 3rd respondent when the earlier order, dated 11.11.98, issued by the second respondent was set aside by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.2.2005, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same…” 2. Petitioners, who are brothers, have completed Post-Graduation in Engineering and were employed in O.N.G.C. as Superintendent Engineer (Production) and Deputy Superintendent Engineer (Drilling) respectively. Both of them claimed to be belonging to “Samban” caste 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.21686 of 2005 by birth, which has been recognized as Scheduled Caste in terms of Constitution (Schedule Caste) Order, 1950. The competent authority stated to have enquired into the status of their caste and accordingly, issued caste certificates in that regard. 3. That being so, one Mr.P.Malakondaiah, made a complaint, dated 28.05.1996 to the 2nd respondent alleging that the caste certificates issued in favour of petitioners were on misrepresentation and therefore, sought for an enquiry. In pursuance to the aforesaid complaint, 2nd respondent has undertaken enquiry and eventually, by orders, dated 11.11.1998, cancelled the initial caste certificates holding that petitioners did not belong to the caste as claimed, however, they belong to “Bestha” community, which was recognized as Backward Class. 4. Assailing the same, petitioners stated to have preferred W.P.No.32770 of 1998. Initially, interim order was granted staying operation of impugned cancellation orders, however, as there was an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (S.C., S.T. & B.Cs.) Regulation of Issuance of Community Certificates Act, 1993, (for short, ‘the Act’), petitioners were relegated to avail the same and the interim arrangement made earlier was directed to be continued till disposal of the appeal. Petitioners eventually preferred Appeal before the Government challenging the orders of 2nd 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.21686 of 2005 respondent cancelling their caste certificates. Upon consideration, the appeal so preferred came to be allowed by Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.23, Social Welfare (CV.1) Department, dated 26.02.2005, and has set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent. The said order stated to have attained finality as the same was not called in question before any forum or this Court. 5. Be that as it may, now, the 2nd respondent, yet again, has issued notice in Form-VI vide proceedings in Rc.CS(M)9148/98, dated 21.06.2005, purported to be based on yet another complaint, directing petitioners to attend to the enquiry slated on 27.06.2005 with regard to their caste certificates. Challenging the said notice, present writ petition is preferred. 6. Heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare Department appearing for the respondents. 7. This Court has initially passed interim directions on 01.05.2005 staying operation of further proceedings in pursuance to the second enquiry, and the same are subsisting as on today. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavit so far, however, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has placed on record written 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.21686 of 2005 instructions, dated 09.02.2026. In the written instructions, it is stated that though first enquiry concluded and culminated into final orders vide G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.02.2005, which has set aside the earlier orders of the District Collector, cancelling the caste certificate, yet again, second enquiry has been initiated against the petitioners based on certain complaints received. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that when once the enquiry has been undertaken by invoking provisions of the Act and the Rules based on third party complaint, the same culminating into a final order by the 2nd respondent cancelling the caste certificates, which eventually, in appeal, being set aside and having attained finality, question of initiating second enquiry does not arise. The provisions of the Act nor Rules neither envisage such course of action, and any such enquiry tantamounts to reviewing orders of the appellate authority, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he would urge to allow the writ petition. 9. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 10. It is not in dispute that based on complaint given by Mr.P. Malakondaiah, earlier proceedings were initiated against the petitioners 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.21686 of 2005 for cancellation of caste certificates, which, initially, culminated in orders, dated 11.11.1998, issued by 2nd respondent, thus, cancelling the caste certificates. In appeal, the said proceedings came to be set aside vide G.O. Ms.No.23, dated 26.02.2005, which attained finality. There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once the 2nd respondent undertook proper enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, and the same resulted in final order and further tested even in appeal before the appellate authority, initiating second round of enquiry either suo motu or based on second complaint virtually tantamount to reviewing the appellate authority’s order, which otherwise, not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The 2nd respondent or for that matter the Government, who also exercises the powers of enquiry officer or appellate authority, being creatures of statute, are required to exercise the specific powers those that are vested on them, and they cannot act as super bodies to embark and annul the earlier proceedings already decided on merits. No specific provision has been brought to notice of this Court empowering 2nd respondent to initiate second enquiry. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the initiation of second enquiry and issuance of notice in Form-VI vide 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.21686 of 2005 Rc.C5(M) 9148/98, dated 21.06.2005, by the 3rd respondent is clearly without jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed setting aside the impugned notice, issued by the 3rd respondent. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:09.02.2026. cs