The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Shaik Jabeen
2021 Latest Caselaw 4009 AP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                &
             HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                          WRIT APPEAL No.647 of 2021
                          (Through Video-Conferencing)

 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
 Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat,
 Velagapudi, Guntur District , and others                      ... Appellants

                                       Versus

 Shaik Jabeen, W/o. Shaik Sadik, aged about 26 years,
 Occ: MPP member, R/o.5/199, Chiluvuru, Guntur,
 Andhra Pradesh, and another                                        ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. D. Srinivas, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Subba Rao

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Vivek S Chandrasekhar

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt:08.10.2021

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the

appellants, Mr. D. Srinivas, learned senior counsel assisted by

Mr. G. Subba Rao - learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Vivek S

Chandrasekhar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 07.10.2021 passed in

W.P.No.23133 of 2021.

3. The case of writ petitioner (respondent No.1) is that she belongs to

Shaik caste and the same is categorised as BC-E category. She was elected

to MPTC from Chiluvuru-1. The post of President of Mandal Praja Parishad,

Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District is reserved for BC Category and she was

selected by TDP/Jana Sena parties to contest as President of Mandal Praja

Parishad. She prayed for a caste certificate along with relevant materials on

20.09.2021 so as to enable her to contest the election, which was originally 2 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.647 of 2021

scheduled on 24.09.2021 for the post of President. As no action was taken by

the authorities, she filed W.P.No.21353 of 2021. During the pendency of the

said writ petition, her application was rejected by proceedings dated

22.09.2021. Against rejection of her application, she filed an appeal before

respondent No.3 on 24.09.2021. The election, however, could not take place

on 24.09.2021 due to lack of quorum and subsequently, by notification dated

01.10.2021, the same was scheduled on 08.10.2021.

4. The learned single Judge by the order impugned, while directing the

District Collector, Guntur, to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner

within one week from the date of the order, stayed election to Mandal Praja

Parishad, Duggirala, Guntur District, till then.

5. Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader appearing for

the appellants, has submitted that during the course of the order impugned,

the learned single Judge has recorded certain findings as a result of which the

District Collector cannot apply his independent mind in disposing of the

appeal. He has drawn attention of the Court to un-numbered paragraphs 4

and 5 of the internal page No.3 of the order under assailment in this

connection. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, when the election notification was not challenged by the writ petitioner,

grant of interim order staying the election for a period of one week was not

called for.

6. Mr. D. Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1,

submits that any such observation made by the learned single Judge have to

be understood as prima facie observations and, in that view of the matter, this

Court can always observe that the District Collector may pass orders

disposing of the appeal without being influenced by any observations made by

the learned single Judge. It is further submitted that the District Collector, in

the attending facts and circumstances, should have promptly disposed of the

appeal so as not to cause prejudice to the writ petitioner. However, as the 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.647 of 2021

same was not done, learned single Judge passed the order directing appellant

No.2 to dispose of the appeal within a period of one week from the date of the

order and provided that till then, election to the Mandal Praja Parishad,

Duggirala, Guntur District, shall remain stayed. He submits that in the factual

matrix as presented, no interference is called for with the aforesaid order.

7. The learned single Judge observed as follows:

"The petitioner is a woman belongs to Minority Community. In the

background of social structure of this country, the women belongs

to Minority Community will get opportunity very hardly to occupy the

public positions. In such circumstances, when the petitioner is

contending to contest as President, Mandal Praja Parishad,

Duggirala, which is reserved for BC category, depriving her

legitimate right on some technicalities is unreasonable as per the

prima facie opinion of this Court. By not conducting election for one

Mandal President post for one week, it would not cause damage to

the democracy of this country.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to provide

reasonable opportunity to a woman belongs to Minority Backward

Community, this Court by exercising the powers vested under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the 3rd Respondent

to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within one week from

today and till then, the respondents are directed not to conduct

elections to the post of Mandal Praja Parishad, Duggirala, Guntur

District."

8. We are of the opinion that in a matter of the present nature, where

caste certificate for an elected representative was rejected and when an

appeal was filed against such rejection, bearing in mind that elections for the

post of President and Vice President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Duggirala,

Guntur District was round the corner and as the writ petitioner is taking a plea 4 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.647 of 2021

that she belongs to the category for which the post of President was reserved,

it was incumbent on the part of the District Collector to have disposed of the

appeal as expeditiously as possible. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid

factual matrix, the learned single Judge passed the impugned order directing

the District Collector to dispose of the appeal within a period of one week from

the date of the order and stayed the election to Mandal Praja Parishad,

Duggirala for the aforesaid period.

9. The portion on which Mr. Syed Khader Masthan relied upon to contend

that certain findings have been recorded by the learned single Judge, reads

as follows:

".....

It appears from the record that the petitioner has submitted all

relevant documents to establish her community with the application,

dated 20.09.2021. But, the 6th respondent considering only school

transfer certificate, rejected application of the petitioner.

On careful examination of the rejection order passed by the

Tahsildar (i.e.) 6th Respondent on 22.09.2021, it is clear that no

other documents are considered by the 6th Respondent. It is also

clear that the procedure provided U/Sec.5(b) of The Andhra

Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward

Classes) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993

also not followed before passing the rejection order."

10. In view of the above discussion, we see no good ground to interfere

with the order under challenge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

However, we make it clear that the observations of the learned single Judge

which are extracted in the present judgment shall not influence appellant

No.2/District Collector while disposing of the appeal and the appeal shall be

considered on its own merits.

                                       5                             HCJ & NJS,J
                                                               W.A.No.647 of 2021

11. At this stage, though Mr. Syed Khader Masthan had prayed for

extension of time for disposal of the appeal, we are not inclined to extend the

period for disposal of the appeal, as election is stayed for the purpose of

disposal of the appeal.

No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                              NINALA JAYASURYA, J
MRR