Telangana High Court
WP/24592/2004 of S. Nagaraju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24592 of 2004 Between: S. Nagaraju, S/o. Subrahmanyam, R/o. Opp. Civil Supplies Rice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24592 of 2004
Between:
S. Nagaraju, S/o. Subrahmanyam, R/o. Opp. Civil Supplies Rice Godown, Beside S.R.A. Talkies, PottiSriramulupet, Narsingaraopet, Gudur Town and Mandal, Nellore District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Department of TribalWelfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Collector and District Magsitrate, Nellore, Nellore Dsitrict.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring inaction of the 1st respondentin not granting stay of all further proceedings including order of the 2nd respondentin Rc.C5.(M) 3856/2002, dated 23-11-2004, pending appeal filed under Section 7 ofthe A.P. (S.C. S.T. and B.C.s) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act,1993 as arbitrary, non-exercise of power and contrary to Rule 11(2) of the A.P. (SC,ST and BCs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Rules, 1997 apart fromviolative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution ofIndia and consequently suspend the order of the 2nd respondent in Rc.C5.(M)3856/2002, dated 23-11-2004.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court at the admission stage, made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus todeclare the action of the 1[st] respondent in not granting stay ofProceedings Rc.C5(M)3856/2002, dated 23.11.2004 issued by the2[nd] respondent cancelling the community certificate of the petitioneras illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rule 11(2) of the A.P. (S.C.,S.T. and B.Cs.) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate, Rules,1997.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite offiling of an appeal and an application for grant of stay, the 1[st]respondent has not passed any orders, and therefore, a directionmay be given to the 1[st] respondent to pass appropriate orders on theapplication for grant of stay.
On the other hand, the learned Government pleader for SocialWelfare has opposed the same on the ground that the proceedingsof the 2[nd] respondent cannot be stayed. The cancellation of thecaste certificate by the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector is the subjectmatter to be decided by the 1[st] respondent in the statutory appealfiled by petitioner. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent has to takeappropriate decision whether to grant stay of the proceedings of the2[nd] respondent or not.
Admittedly, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 of the A.P.
(S.C., S.T. and B.Cs.) Regulation of Issue of Community CertificatesAct, 1993 before the 1[st] respondent along with interlocutoryapplication for grant of stay of further proceedings including theProceedings, dated 23.11.2004, but no orders have been passed.The petitioner’s apprehension is that criminal prosecution may belaunched against him in pursuance of the cancellation of the castecertificate. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner prays to grant stayof criminal proceedings till the disposal of the appeal by the 1[st]respondent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ideem it appropriate to direct the 1[st] respondent to pass appropriateorder on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, thereshall be stay of criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
29[th] December, 2004.
bcj
To
1 The Secretary, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of TribalWelfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Collector and District Magsitrate, Nellore, Nellore Dsitrict.
3 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Social Welfare, HighCourt Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
4. Two C.D. copies