The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs T Varahalu
2022 Latest Caselaw 5488 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEFJUSTICE
                                         &

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                   WRIT APPEAL No.760 OF 2021
                           (Through physical mode)


  The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
  Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
  (CV.2)     Department,      Secretariat,
  Velagapudi,     Amaravathi,     Guntur
  District and another.

                                                            .. Appellants
        Versus

  T. Varahalu, S/o T. Lova Raju, Working
  as Agriculture Extension Officer, Peda
  Sankarlapudi, Pattipadu Mandal, East
  Godavari District and another
                                                          .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Government Pleader for Social Welfare

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. K. Satyanarayana Murthy

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt:23.08.2022 (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)

This Writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated

17.10.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.17667 of 2004. By this order the Writ Petition was

allowed and G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 26.05.2004, which was

issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh cancelling the

Konda Kapu ST Certificate obtained by the petitioner, was

quashed.

2) This Court has heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao,

learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri

K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture,

who is arrayed as respondent No.3, in W.P.No.17667 of 2004,

supported the case of the appellants.

3) The 1st respondent has obtained a community

certificate dated 23.06.1977 which certified that he belongs to

the Konda Kapu (ST) community. This Certificate, dated

23.06.1977, was utilised by him for securing employment in

the office of Director of Agriculture. Stating that he has

obtained a false certificate a notice was served to him in 1989

seeking his explanation. Thereafter, enquiries were conducted

and the District Collector cancelled his Community Certificate

on 10.05.1989. Aggrieved by this, the 1st respondent filed

W.P.No.7105 of 1989 which was allowed on 12.06.2000. The

impugned order dated 10.05.1989 was set aside and the

matter was remanded back to the official respondent for fresh

enquiry. Thereafter, another enquiry was conducted and

District Level Scrutiny Committee which is formed under the

Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules framed

thereafter (Hereinafter called as 'Act 16 of 1993' and '1997

Rules' for the sake of brevity), ultimately, cancelled the

petitioner's caste certificate vide proceedings dated

24.04.2002. The 1st respondent preferred a statutory appeal

before the Government. The Government after a hearing,

upheld the orders of the Committee and issued the impugned

G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 26.05.2004, cancelling the caste

certificate.

4) Writ Petition No.17667 of 2004 was filed

challenging the same. The Learned Single Judge after

consideration of the case and the report of the Committee

came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has made out

a case and cancelled the impugned GO. The State is in appeal

before this Court.

5) In the Writ Appeal the learned Government

Pleader for Women and Social Welfare, Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao,

argued the matter at length and also submitted a memo with

case law wherein the following judgments were cited:

          i)      V.V.Giri v D. Suri Dora and others1
          ii)     Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur v
                  Y. Mohan Rao2
          iii)    Dharma          Reddy    v    Sub-Collector,     Bodhan,
                  Nizamabad Dist., and Others3
          iv)     Harpal      Singh       and       Another   v   State     of
                  Himachal Pradesh4
          v)      Union of India v S.M.Hussain Rasheed5
          vi)     Bokkam          Ramam         v     District    Collector,

Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam 6

vii) Bami Bewa v Krushna Chandra Swain @ Gochhayat and others7

AIR 1959 SC 1318

(1976) 3 SCC 411

AIR 1987 AP 160

1981 Crl.LJ 1

2003 LawSuit (AP) 853

2001 (6) ALD 691

viii) B. Suseelamma v Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool and Others8

ix) Puppala Anjaneyulu v Government of A.P. and Others9

x) K.P. Manu v Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate 10

6) Pursuant to this Court's direction he also

produced and filed the original file pertaining to the 1st

respondent's case, which was also considered by this Court.

7) Learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st

respondent belongs to the family which bears the surname

"TADE". He points out that examination of the issue by the

concerned revenue authorities showed that the members of

the 'Tade' family all belong to Kapu community and are not

Konda Kapus (ST). He also argued that the genealogical tree

of the 'Tade' family shows that they belong to the Kapu

community(BC). The marriages of the members of the 'Tade'

family were with the women belonging to the Kapu

community. The 1st respondent himself married a woman

belonging to the Kapu community by name Madduri

Ramatulasi. The date of birth extracts examined by the

Committee showed that the members of the family bearing

'Tade' surname were registered as Kapu community members

in 1968, 1971 etc. It is also pointed out that the 1st

respondent only produced School Leaving Certificate,

AIR 2004 Orissa 14

2011 (5) ALT 443 (SB)

2011 (3) ALD 757

2015 LawSuit (SC 178

Community Certificate, Nativity Certificate, Transfer

Certificate issued by the McLaren High School, Kakinada,

voters list and the Gram Panchayat etc. It is also pointed out

that the caste of the 1st respondent's mother was also not

established as a tribal. As per the appellant none of these

documents are sufficient proof of the 1st respondent's claim.

Learned Government Pleader points out that the order of the

District Level Committee, which led to the impugned G.O.

being passed, is a reasoned order which has discussed the

various documents filed in a tabular statement and ultimately

it was held that the 1st respondent does not belong to 'Konda

Kapu' community. He relies upon the case law and in

particular V.V.Giri case (1 supra), Principal, GMC, Guntur

case (2 supra) and other cases to argue that the manner in

which a person is treated by the members of the community

is important. He stresses on the fact that the members of the

'Tade' family were recorded as Kapus and this is evidenced by

their matrimonial alliances. Learned Government Pleader

highlights the fact that this recognition by fellow members is

an important factor in deciding the caste of an individual.

8) He also points out that based upon Puppala

Anjaneyulu case (9 supra) that a caste certificate can only

be issued by the Tahsildar of the area, which is in the

scheduled area. Regarding the Date of Birth noted in the

school certificates also learned Government Pleader states

that the same is not good evidence and he relies upon Harpal

Singh case (4 supra). Bami Bewa case (7 supra).

9) The contention of the learned Government

Pleader, therefore, is that after considering the evidence on

record and the enquiries made by the revenue authorities, the

District Level Scrutiny Committee came to a conclusion that

the 1st respondent does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe

community. He argues that the learned single Judge did not

consider these aspects properly and at best he could have

remitted back the matter in case he was dissatisfied with the

enquiry or the manner in which it was held. He also states

that the findings of the learned single Judge, therefore, are

not correct. He submits that there is application of mind,

consideration of evidence and cogent reasons for the

conclusions.

10) In reply to this Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy,

learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner argues

that the order passed by the learned single Judge is correct

and valid. He points out that from 1988 onwards continuous

enquiries are being held into the matter and the 1st

respondent is being continuously harassed for no fault on his

part. Learned counsel points out that repeated enquiries

cannot be held on the same subject. It is urged that the

surname Tade belongs to families of the ST category and the

same surname is also found by people belonging to OC

community etc. He also submits that in the course of enquiry

the 1st respondent's father and father-in-law were also

examined. Both of them categorically asserted and stated

that the 1st respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu

community. The father-in-law clearly stated that he has

given his daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent while

being conscious of his community as Konda Kapu. All the

family members are shown in the voters list as belonging to

the Konda Kapu community only. He also argued that the

RDO, who is the man on the field, has certified in his report

dated 31.10.2000 that the 1st respondent belongs to Konda

Kapu community. It is also argued that long before the

litigation has started or a doubt has arisen the 1st respondent

was asserting his Scheduled Tribe status and the same is

borne out by his school records. It is also submitted that

despite the order passed by the learned single Judge in

W.P.No.7105 of 1989, the District Level Scrutiny Committee

did not exercise its mind as required under law. Learned

counsel submits that the documents were merely brushed

aside on the ground that they are not enough or valid to

decide the case of the 1st respondent. The tabular statement

reproduced in the single Judge's order is highlighted by the

learned counsel to show that no "reasons" are given for

rejection of the eight documents. He also points out that the

mere fact that Tade is a surname belonging to the Kapu

community does not lead to a conclusion that the 1st

respondent is also a member of the Kapu community and

there is no independent evidence to show that the 1st

respondent is a member of Kapu community. He points out

that the order suffers from non-application of mind as it

refers to the fact that the community of the 1st respondent's

"mother" is not established. Learned counsel submits that

this aspect was also noticed by the learned single Judge. The

community of the father will have a bearing on the

community claimed by the offspring and not vice versa. It is

submitted that the learned single Judge clearly held that

there is non-application of mind by the 1st appellate authority

and that no reasons were produced for brushing aside the

evidence adduced by the 1st respondent. He also relies upon

Government of A.P. and Another v R.K. Ragala and

another11 to submit that repeated enquiries cannot be held

into the same issue. Therefore, he submits that there are no

merits in the Writ Appeal and the same should be dismissed.

COURT:-

11) In the opinion of this Court the submissions made

by the learned counsels and the issues raised should be

examined against the backdrop of the order passed by the

learned single Judge in the earlier Writ Petition No.7105 of

1989 filed by the 1st respondent against the State and the

provisions of Act 13 of 1993.

12) The 1st respondent filed this earlier writ

challenging the order dated 13.05.1989 by which the 1st

AIR 1994 AP 238

respondent's Caste certificate dated 23.06.1977 was

cancelled. Learned single Judge said that the impugned

order of cancellation is based on some material which was

collected behind back of the petitioner therein and some

statements were recorded by the MRO himself. The 1st

respondent was not supplied these materials and was not

given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

13) Act 13 of 1993 and the Rules also provide them a

procedure to be followed for an enquiry. Section 5 of this Act

gives the power to the District Collector to enquire into the

correctness of any certificate (either suo moto or on a written

complaint). The burden of proof as per Section 6 of the Act

13 of 1993 lies on the person who claims that he belongs to a

Scheduled Caste, Tribe or a Class. Any person aggrieved by

an order passed under Section 5 can appeal to the

Government under Section 7 (3) of Act 13 of 1993. The

Government shall after giving an opportunity to the appellant

dispose of the same. Power of revision is also given to the

Government. Section 9 also states that the competent

authority shall have the powers of Civil Court while holding

an enquiry. A procedure for an enquiry is stipulated in the

1997 Rules issued by the G.O. Ms.No.58, dated 12.05.1997.

Of this, Rule 5 of Act 13 of 1997 deals with the procedure for

verification and Rule 5 (b) directs the competent authority to

examine the school records, birth registration certificate, if

any, and also examine the parent / guardian or applicant.

The competent authority can also examine any other person

who has knowledge of the social status.

14) There are two scrutiny committees one at State

level and one at District level. The District Level Scrutiny

Committee can also conduct an enquiry as per Rule 8 of the

Rules. Rule 8(4) authorises the Scrutiny Committee to hold

an enquiry, collect documentary evidence or any other related

evidence about the correctness or otherwise of the

information furnished or objections raised by any other

person. Rule 8 (5) which has a bearing on this aspect is as

follows:

"(5) The Scrutiny Committee shall examine the school records, birth registration certificates, if any, furnished by the persons during the enquiry. It may also examine any other person who may have knowledge of the community of the appellant. With reference to the claims of Scheduled Tribes, it may examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies / method of burial of dead bodies etc., of that particular tribe, to finalize its recommendations to the Competent Authority."

15) Rule 8 (7) gives the authority to the Scrutiny

Committee to examine the revenue reports etc. The appellate

authority at the State and the District level as per Rule 14

has the powers of a Civil Court for receiving evidence,

summoning, examining any person or document or making a

local enquiry and inspections.

16) Based on the submissions made by both the

counsels and the evidence on record including the original

file, which were produced pursuant to the order of this Court

dated 22.03.2022, this Court is proposing to examine the

matter.

17) The 1st order to be examined is dated 24.04.2002,

which is passed by the Collector and District Magistrate. The

order discussed the evidence collected till then in the first few

pages. The Mandal Revenue Officer's report which revealed

that the 1st respondent and his ancestors belong to Konda

Kapu community and are following the tribal customs was

taken into consideration. The School registers extracts

produced by the 1st respondent were examined and the

statements of the villagers were also noted. It was also noted

that the 1st respondent got married to a daughter of a person

belonging to the Kapu community. The MRO's conclusion

was noted. The RDO's further report was also considered.

Thereafter, it was held that the community of the mother of

the 1st respondent was "not" established. The District Level

Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the MROs

report is not correct and it is based upon premises etc. In the

opinion of this Court, no cogent reason is given why the

report of the MRO is flawed except stating that it is not in

proper line.

18) Coming to the documentary evidence, which was

considered in a tabular statement this Court notices that the

finding is that the community certificate issued by the

Tahsildar is not a valid proof to determine the caste of the

individual "when the enquiry was going on". This certificate

dated 23.06.1977 and by that date the enquiry was not going

on and no proceedings were commenced. No other reason is

given to negative this document.

19) The transfer certificate issued by the McLaren

High School dated 02.05.1981 was negatived on the ground

that school records are not documentary evidence to

determine the caste of the individual. Learned Government

Pleader appearing for the appellant also relied upon a

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in

Harpal Singh case (4 supra) in support of his contention

that school records are not valid documents for determining

the caste of an individual. This Court, however, notices that

Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder cast a

positive duty upon the Scrutiny Committee to examine the

school records and other documents. Rule 5 (b) clearly states

that the competent authority shall examine the school records

and other documents. If the further enquiry is necessary,

then Rule 8 (b) states that the Scrutiny Committee shall

examine school records etc. Therefore, if the competent

authority feels that a further enquiry is necessary before

issuing a certificate it is duty bound to examine the school

record, birth registration certificate etc. An equally positive

duty is cast upon the Scrutiny Committee during the course

of an enquiry into the false certificate to examine the school

records. This is borne out by the use of the word "shall" in

more than one place in the rules enacted for the purpose of

verification of a caste certificate. In the opinion of this Court,

once the statute prescribes the method to do a thing it must

be done in that method or not at all. This is the well-known

Taylor Principle which was approved by the Supreme Court of

India also.

20) In the case on hand the school record produced by

the 1st respondent shows that his date of birth is dated

01.05.1964 and that his caste is "Konda Kapu." While

Harpal Singh case (4 supra) is a judgement discussing the

evidentiary value of school record in criminal case a clearer

judgement on the subject is reported in State of Punjab v

Mohinder Singh12. Paragraph 12 and 13 of this judgement

at page 707 are as follows

"12. On the contrary, the statement contained in the admission register of the school as to the age of an individual on information supplied to the school authorities by the father, guardian or a close relative is more authentic evidence under Section 32 clause (5) unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material to show that it is inherently improbable. The time of one's birth relates to the commencement of one's relationship by blood and a statement therefore of one's age made by a person having special means of knowledge, relates to the existence of such relationship as that referred to in Section 32 clause (5).

(2005) 3 SCC 702

13. As observed by this Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 2 SCC 202 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 200 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 396] ordinarily oral evidence can hardly be useful to determine the correct age of a person, and the question, therefore, would largely depend on the documents and the nature of their authenticity. Oral evidence may have utility if no documentary evidence is forthcoming. Even the horoscope cannot be reliable because it can be prepared at any time to suit the needs of a particular situation. Entries in the school register and admission form regarding date of birth constitute good proof of age. There is no legal requirement that the public or other official book should be kept only by a public officer and all that is required under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is that it should be regularly kept in discharge of official duty. In the instant case the entries in the school register were made ante litem motam."

21) Although this judgement refers to the Date of

Birth recorded in the school register, this Court is of the

opinion that the ratio of this decision squarely applies to the

caste status of the 1st respondent which is recorded as Konda

Kapu. This Court also notices that the entries were made

ante litem motam. This Court does not find clear evidence of

the kind noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to

overlook or ignore the earlier caste certificate.

22) Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

District Level Scrutiny Committee made a mistake or

committed an error in ignoring the documents produced and

brushing it aside. Similarly, this Court also notices that the

certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch, nativity

certificate issued by the MRO were also brushed aside along

with a copy of the study certificates. While the study

certificates individually may not be enough to determine the

caste of the individual, the totality of the circumstances

should have been considered by the District Level Committee.

Merely, brushing aside a document and stating that they are

not valid documentary evidence is incorrect in the opinion of

this Court.

23) Coming to the statements given by the villagers of

Chintaluru village to which the 1st respondent belongs, this

Court is of the opinion that the same was also brushed aside

as invalid documentary evidence. Once again this Court feels

both Rules 5(b), 8(5) were overlooked. This Court is of the

opinion that the rules function as a beacon light or a guiding

factor to the competent authority and the Scrutiny Committee

to decide such issues. Any person having knowledge of the

social status of the applicant etc., can be examined.

Similarly, the parent and guardian can also be examined.

The Scrutiny Committee under Rule 8 (5) also has the power

to examine any person who may have knowledge of the

community of the applicant.

24) The original record produced contains the

statements of the father of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

He states that he belongs to the Konda Kapu community and

that his in-laws also belong to the Konda Kapu community.

It is also stated by him that although they belong to the

Konda Kapu community they are marrying into the Kapu

community. The statement of the 1st respondent is also to

similar effect. However, of particular importance in this

Court's opinion is the statement made by the 1st respondent's

father-in-law. He clearly admits that although he belongs to

the Kapu community he has given his daughter in marriage

in 1986 to the 1st respondent. He also submits that since he

has six daughters, it was difficult for him to get alliances with

the members of the Kapu community and therefore, he gave

his fourth daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent even

though he belongs to Konda Kapu community. In fact, in the

submissions made by the 1st respondent on 19.04.1989 he

relies upon the statement of his father-in-law and clearly sets

forth his contention that the mere fact that he married a

Kapu lady does not change his basic community. In addition,

the MRO in his report dated 30.10.2000 which is after the

disposal of the 1st writ petition has submitted a report

wherein he states that enquiry was conducted in the village

where the family members of the 1st respondent are residing

and it revealed that the 1st respondent belonging to Konda

Kapu caste and they are following tribal customs also. The

villagers have also given a statement stating that the 1st

respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu community. This is

also referred to in the report dated 16.04.2001 wherein the

MRO states that he has recorded statements from these

people, who are the village elders and who have stated that

the 1st respondent belongs to the Konda Kapu community. It

is also stated that they are following certain tribal customs by

worshipping tribal goddesses. However, in the course of his

personal enquiry he states that it is revealed that the 1st

respondent is not a Konda Kapu. The 1st respondent has also

produced a certificate issued by the Sarpanch on 22.05.1989

along with a statement given by the 11 elders which supports

the case of the writ petitioner that he is a Konda Kapu. This

is filed before the Joint Collector by the 1st respondent vide

memo dated 20.04.2021.

25) These facts are being set out in detail because in

the opinion of this Court, the District Level Scrutiny

Committee ignored this vital information which was

mandated to be considered by the statute in question viz., the

Act 16 of 1993 and the rules framed thereunder.

26) This Court also has to notice and state that

orders of this nature which have a vital bearing on the status

of individuals can only be passed after due consideration of

the entire material on record. Reasons must also be given for

negativing and or refusing documentary evidence that has

been produced by a party. Reasons are the heart beat for any

decision. They provide the link between the facts and the

conclusion. The law on this aspect is very well settled and

need not be repeated here. Merely, brushing aside the

evidence on the ground that the school records are not valid

documents or that the voters list is not a valid document and

that the statements given by elders are not valid, is not

enough by itself. The reasons should be furnished as to why

this evidence is considered as insufficient. In the case of

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd., v Masood Ahmed Khan 13 the

Hon'ble Supreme court of India summarised the entire law

about the need for reasons and held that rubber stamp

reasons are not be equated with a valid decision making

process. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Mohinder Singh case (12 supra) has clearly said that

entries in a school register can be considered as an authentic

evidence under Section 32 (5) of the Indian Evidence Act,

unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material

to show that it is inherently improbable.

27) The District Level Scrutiny Committee relied upon

the fact that members of Tade family got married to the

people of Kapu community. In the opinion of this Court in

the age of social mobility the mere fact that a person is getting

a spouse from a different community is not by itself enough to

hold that he does not belong to a community. Social mobility

is a factor which is a ground reality these days. Therefore,

this by itself cannot be a ground to negative the 1st

respondent's claim. In contradiction to this the father-in-law

of the 1st respondent has himself stated on oath that he has

given his daughter in marriage to the 1st respondent since he

had "6" daughters and had difficulty in getting them married

(2010) 9 SCC 496

to members of his community. The statements given by all

the villagers in which the 1st respondent grew up is also

important. In a country like India particularly in relation to

villages in India getting an authentic record is often difficult

because of illiteracy, poverty etc. It is for this reason Act 16

of 1993 and the Rules correctly provided for recording all

statements from the parents and others who are conscious of

the caste of an individual. The way the members of the caste

or a locality have treated the 1st respondent is important in

the opinion of this Court.

28) This court also notices that an emphasis has been

placed by the Scrutiny Committee on the photostat copies of

the Date of Birth Extracts of the village. It is a fact that some

of these entries relate to people bearing the surname Tade.

This Court is of the opinion that in a matter of this nature

when the proof of contents of a document is vital to determine

the issue, the statutory authority cannot merely rely upon the

document. Copies of the documents should be furnished to

the claimants so that they get a chance to rebut the same or

explain the same. The learned single Judge in the Course of

his decision in first W.P.No.7105 of 1989 has clearly held that

the authorities have relied upon the documents which were

collected behind back of the writ petitioner therein. The

entries which are relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee are

not furnished to the 1st respondent. The file does not disclose

that these entries were brought to the notice of the 1st

respondent or his father. The mere fact that these are

supposed to be entries from the Date of Birth register will not

by itself lead to a conclusion that the 1st respondent's caste is

Kapu. The Committee relied upon the photostat copies of the

extracts and did not also state that they have verified the

originals. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was born in 1964

and these entries do not relate to him. The 1962 entry is said

to be an entry belonging to the family of Tade Varahalu of the

1strespondent. The record does not reveal that it was

confronted either to the 1st respondent or his father, who has

given the statement, to establish its veracity and also to

determine the conditions under which the said entries were

made. This is the essence of a free and fair enquiry which in

the opinion of this Court has not been followed even after the

judgement was passed by the learned single Judge in this

very same case.

29) Lastly, this Court notices that the claim of the 1st

respondent was brushed aside on the ground that he has not

filed any valid documentary proof like the Birth and Death

Register. It is a fact that the burden of proof is on the 1st

respondent but the ground reality cannot be lost sight of. The

illiteracy and poverty in rural India cannot be totally lost sight

of. Access to Government offices and furnishing of correct

information is not possible even today. It is for this reason

only that the Rules provide that the Birth Registration

Certificate "if any" furnished by the person should be

considered. The rules clearly stipulated that the Committee

should examine the anthropological, ethnological traits,

rituals, customs etc., to determine the claim of scheduled

tribes. Any person who has knowledge of the community can

also be examined. The expert's opinion can also be obtained

as per Rule 7 from members of the Scrutiny Committee

belonging to the Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare

Department. Persons, who have knowledge of the social

status of the applicant also may be examined.

30) Against this background, this Court opines that

merely brushing aside the case of the 1st respondent on the

ground that the documents produced by him are not valid

and that he did not produce the basic record like Deaths and

Births record is contrary to law.

31) Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to record

that the District Level Scrutiny Committee did not decide the

matter as warranted by law. The order dated 24.04.2002 is,

therefore, held to be contrary to law.

32) Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.45, was also issued on

26.05.2004. A perusal of this shows that the Government

also did not act as warranted under law. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of

this order set out the factual matrix. In paragraph 8 the

decision of the Government is revealed and it merely shows

from a perusal of the records of appeal and other material

papers and after hearing it is observed that the writ petitioner

has not filed any valid documentary evidence in support of his

ST Konda Kapu caste, except school record and voter list. It

is further commented that the Birth and Death Register of

Chinthaluru revealed that the caste of Tade is recorded as

Kapu. Based on this and genealogical information, birth

register photostat copies it is concluded that the Tade

Varahalu belongs to the kapu caste. In the opinion of this

Court, this order also suffers from the same vice. It does not

contain a discussion of the evidence nor does it contain

reasons for the conclusions. The mere fact that inter-caste

marriages are taking place is not a ground to totally ignore

his caste status. This is an issue raised by the 1st respondent

himself, yet this has been overlooked and the statements

given by the elders of the village and others have also been

brushed aside.

33) Therefore, this Court holds that even this order is

contrary to law. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.45 is also set aside

because it does not contain reasons and it has overlooked the

important documents, which are on the file. There is clear

non-application of mind here also.

34) The learned single Judge clearly came to the

conclusion that the District Level scrutiny (which he called as

1st appellate authority) has not independently applied its

mind and has come to an erroneous conclusion. The

impugned G.O. was also held to be based upon the

improbable enquiry. For all the above mentioned reasons

this Court agrees with the findings of the learned single

Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances

with no costs.

35) Consequently, the miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Ssv