However, The Supreme Court In Unitedbank Of India v. In Commissioner Of Income Tax And

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.36643 of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learnedcounsel for petitioner and the learned SpecialGovernment Petitioner representing learnedAdvocate General for respondents. 2.The petitioner has questioned theproceedings dt.17-08-2015 of the 3[rd] respondentrefusing the petitioner’s application dt.03-04-2015 for issuance of Caste Certificatestating that petitioner belongs to Madasi Kuruvacommunity as per A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulationof Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (forshort “the Act”). 3.Petitioner contends that petitioner and hisparents belong to the said community, that afterthe petitioner applied for Scheduled Castecertificate through Mee Seva certificates, theMandal Revenue Inspector-I, Kallur enquired intothe matter and submitted a report to the 4[th]respondent stating that petitioner’s parentsbelong to Madasi Kuruva community, which isnotified as Scheduled Caste community, that theTransfer Certificate of petitioner also recorded thecaste of the petitioner as Madasi Kuruva, but on the ground that the petitioner did not follow thetraditional customs which were being followed byhis parents, the Mandal Revenue Inspector-Irecommended for rejection of the said castecertificate to the petitioner. 4.Learned counsel for petitioner contendsthat the action of the 3[rd] respondent in rejectingthe petitioner’s application for issuance ofScheduled Caste certificate under the provisionsof the Act is arbitrary, illegal and perverse and ifthe reasoning of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 is tobe accepted, a child born to Scheduled Casteparents would not be able to avail of any benefit ofreservations either in education or employment, ifit is insisted that the child also should follow thesame traditional customs as were being followedby his parents. 5.Learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for respondents states that in the WritPetition, the petitioner had pleaded about Kuruvacaste being included in the B.C.-B category, thatthe petitioner had alleged that respondents aremisleading the members of Maddu Kuravacommunity to obtain certificates in B.C.-Bcategory and therefore the Writ Petition may notbe entertained. 6.It is not disputed that the application ofpetitioner for issuance of community certificaterefers to Madasi Kuruva of Scheduled Castecommunity only. The petitioner never applied forB.C.-B community certificate. Therefore thisargument of the learned Government Pleader isirrelevant. 7.The next contention of the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader appearing for respondents isthat the petitioner has alternative remedy underthe Act. He also relied upon a Division Bench ofthis Court dt.20-11-2012 in W.P.No.35527 of2012. In the said decision, it has been held asunder: “This is not to say that this Court has nojurisdiction to judicially review such errors aswell. It is a trite principle that the constitutionalauthority of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution cannot be circumscribed or impededby creation of statutory appellate remedies. Theprinciple that in the context of any availablealternative remedy, judicial review must beavoided, is a principle engendered for efficientexercise of the function of adjudication acrossdifferent tiers in the hierarchy of the judiciary, ameasure of division of labour. Where there is anefficient alternative statutory remedy provided byway of an appeal under Section 31 of the Act andthe appellate authority is adequately authorized(on this score there is no dispute even by thepetitioner) to go into errors both of law and of factrecorded by an assessing authority; and where theerror as pointed out in the present case is not one that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of therespondent-assessing authority, but an errorallegedly in the legitimate; but allegedly erroneousexercise of it, we consider it appropriate that theaggrieved assessee must be relegated to thestatutory remedy of an appeal; and judicial reviewin the circumstances, must be declined, to facilitateefficient exercise of the extra-ordinary remedy ofjudicial review and its conservation forappropriate cases involving extreme error.” 8.The said decision deals with challenge toan order of assessment dt.26-09-2012 underprovisions of the A.P.VAT Act,2005 where the WritPetition was filed by-passing the statutory remedyunder Section 31 of the said Act. 9.However, the Supreme Court in UnitedBank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon andothers[[1]],General Manager, SriSiddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited andanother Vs. Ikbal and others[[2]]and Union ofIndia and others Vs. Mangal Textile MillsIndia Private Limited and others[[3]]has heldthat existence of an alternative remedy is not anabsolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction underArticle 226 of Constitution of India. It hasobserved that rule of exhaustion of alternativeremedy is a rule of discretion and not one ofcompulsion. 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax and Das Agarwal[[4]], the others Vs. Chhabil Supreme Court observed that non-entertainmentof petitions under Writ jurisdiction by the HighCourt when an efficacious alternative remedy isavailable is a rule of self-imposed limitation and isnot a rule of law. It observed that undoubtedly itis within the discretion of the High Court to grantrelief under Article 226 of Constitution despiteexistence of an alternative remedy. 11.In view of the above legal position, I rejectthis contention raised by the learned Governmentalso. 12.A reading of the impugned endorsementdt.17-08-2015 clearly indicates that the rejectionof petitioner’s application is on the basis of reportof the 4[th] respondent dt.01-07-2015 made to the 3[rd] respondent. In that report, the 4[th] respondenthad referred to the enquiry conducted by theMandal Revenue Inspector-I, Kallur, wherein theMandal Revenue Inspector categorically confirmedthat the parents of the petitioner belong to Madasi[th]Kuruva (S.C. community). The 4 respondent hadrecommended rejection of petitioner’s applicationon the only ground that the petitioner has not followed traditional custom as of his parents. This,according to me, is a shocking reason. If such areasoning is accepted, no child of S.C. or B.C.caste person would be entitled to avail the benefitof reservation either in education field or for thepurpose of employment. 13.In view of this shockingly perverse reasoning of the 3[rd] respondent, this Court is entitled to entertainthis Writ Petition and grant relief to thepetitioner. 14.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the endorsement dt.17-08-2015 of the 3[rd]respondent is set aside; and since there is nodispute that the parents of the petitioner belongto Madasi Kuruva (S.C. community), 3[rd]respondent is directed to issue certificate underthe above Act certifying that the petitionerbelongs to Madasi Kuruva (S.C. community). Thisexercise shall be completed within four (04) weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 15.As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, ifany pending, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 29-07-2016 Vsv [1](2010) 8 SCC 110(2010) 8 SCC 110 [2](2010) 10 SCC 83(2010) 10 SCC 83 [3](2010) 14 SCC 553(2010) 14 SCC 553 [4](2014) 1 SCC 603(2014) 1 SCC 603