Telangana HC dismisses family’s plea against cancellation of ST caste certificates

A division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar, while dismissing the plea against the cancellation of the caste certificates, noted that the writ petition was not maintainable at the first instance. This, the court stated, was since the appellants had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal and review under sections 7(2) and 7(3) of The Telangana (Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (‘1993 Act’), against the collector’s cancellation order.

The district collector’s order recalled that the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, came into force on January 26, 1950, and the Amendment Acts would not apply to those people belonging to particular tribal communities who have migrated after 1950 and have ordinarily been residing in the state of Telangana for a considerable period.

The order further states that the Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, is applicable only to those Lambadas whose ancestors or their offspring are residents of the locality in any part of the state of Telangana as on the date when the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 came into force. The order hence concluded that the appellant and his family members, who migrated from Maharashtra in 1956, are disentitled from claiming ST-Lambada status in Telangana.

The single judge’s primary finding, which the division bench affirmed, was that the appellants failed to produce evidence of ST-Lambada status prior to 1950. The appellants’ family was found to have migrated from Maharashtra in 1956. The district collector’s order, discussed elaborately in the judgment, explicitly concluded that the appellants and their family, having migrated after the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, came into force (on January 26, 1950), were disentitled from claiming ST-Lambada status in Telangana.

The single judge had held that the appellants’ claim was primarily based on ancestral assertions, previous certificates, and purported letters from the All India Banjara Seva Sangh (AIBSS), which were fabricated documents. The court noted that the DLSC had correctly concluded that the caste certificates issued to the appellants were false. It also stated that criminal complaints had been filed against appellant 6 and 7 for fabricating letters on the AIBSS letterhead and forging signatures to obtain the certificates.

The appellants had complained that the official respondents had failed to issue notices for hearing before taking the impugned step is contrary to records. The court strongly rejected this, finding it contrary to the record.

The judgment highlights that the appellant 1 was served notice and appeared before the concerned authority on March 24, 2025, along with his son and advocate, where he submitted documentary evidence. “This suppression itself would disentitle the appellants/writ petitioners from grant of any equitable relief,” the court remarked. The appellants had also obtained an interim suspension order from another single judge on the false ground that no notices had been served.

After considering these grounds, the high court found no error in the reasons given by the single judge and accordingly dismissed the writ appeal.