HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 28542 OF 2024

Between:

Social Hills, Batthula Ram Prasad, S/o Late B Narayana Swamy, Age. 53 years, Occ. Worker (President of Mala Welfare Association) Ho.No.11-5-530, Red Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana.

.....PETITIONER

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by The Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana General administration (Cabinet) Department, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariate Hyderabad, Telangana, 50OO22.

....RESPONDENT

Petition Under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent in constituting ^a committee by issuing MEMO No. 106/CabineUA212024 daled 1210912024 to study the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of lndia dated 01/08i2024 on the su b-classification of S.C. and S.T. reserved categories and to make recommendations and way forward in the matter without constitutiona lly mandatory consultation with the National Commission for the Scheduled castes as prescribed under article 338 (9) Of the Constitution of lndia is illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable and violation of the article 338(9) of the Constitution of lndia consequently set aside the MEMO No. 106/Cabin etlA2l2024 dated 1210912024 issued by the Respondent No.1.

t.A.NO.1 0F 2024

7

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of further proceeding under MEMO No. 106/cabineilA2t2o24 dated ^1210912024 issued by the Respondent.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.KARTH|K NAVAYAN

Counsel for the Sole Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.28542 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the sole respondent and perused the record.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the State Government by issuing Memo dt'12'09'2024 had constituted a Committee to study the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v/s. Davinder Singh and otherl onOL'08'2024, in relation to sub-classiflcation within sC/ST reserved categories and to carefully examine various aspects associated with the issue and to make recommendations regarding the way-forwarded in the matter; that the aforesaid Committee could not have been constituted by the respondent-State Government without consulting the National Commission for Scheduled Castes as specified under Article 338 of the Constitution of India; and thus, the action of the respondent-State in constituting the Committee is in contravention of Afticle 338 of the Constitution of India and calls for interdiction.

' rger (s) AiJ -{!s) +u

3' In support of the aforesaid contention, rearned counser for the petitioner has praced reriance on the decision of a Fu, Bench of this court in B.Narayana and others v/s. Government of A.p. represented by its Chief Secretary and otherl and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DavinderSingh(1 supra).

4. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the impugned Memo cannot be treated as ^a poliry of the state, in reration to the matters which were required to be dealt with by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes; that the constitution of the Committee under the impugned Memo is only to study the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Davinder Singh(1 supra) to suggest way-forward for implementation of the directions contained therein and does not affect any civil rights of any person, much less, that of the petitioner for him to feel aggrieved by the aforesaid Memo and constitution of the Committee.

5. Learned Advocate General further submits that no case is made out by the petitioner by assailing the action of the respondent_State in constituting the Committee for making recommendations regarding the way-fonarard for implementation of the directions contained in the

' rssz lslifrI* 1r.0.1

2

aforesaid judgment studying the judgment and its implications thereunder and for this Court to adjudicate the present Writ Petition.

6. The learned Advocate General would also submit that the Committee constituted under the Memo having regard to directions contained in the iudgment of the Apex Court and its intricacies involved had suggested for appointment of One-Man Commission, headed by ^a retired High Court Judge and except making the above suggestion, did not transact any further business and thus, the Memo as issued by the respondent-State has worked out by iGelf and no adjudication is called for. Thus, it is contended that the present Writ Petition assailing the action of the respondent in issuing the aforesaid Memo constituting the Committee has become infructuous and the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned Advocate General would further submit that based on the recommendations of the Committee constituted under the Memo, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.B, Scheduled Castes Development (POA.A2), dt.11.10.2024, appointing a former Judge of this Court as One-Man Commission for conducting a detailed study on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes reserved categories and to carefully examine various aspects associated with the issue and to make recommendations to the Government.

3

B. Learned Advocate General would further submit that upon the appointment of the One-Man Commission, the Former Judge of this Court assumed office and started functioning inviting objections from various stakeholders; and based on the recommendations submitted by the one-Man Commission, the State Government is required to frame its policy and at that stage it is required to consult the Nationar commission for scheduled castes as provided under Article 338 of the constitution of India and thus, the present Writ petition is premature.

⁹ I have taken note of the respective contentions uroed.

10. while the petitioner has contended that the state Government could not have appointed the committee by issuing a Memo without consulting the National Commission for Scheduled Castes as provided under Article 338 of the constitution of India, sub-crause (9) of Article 338, states that consultation with the National commission for scheduled castes constituted under Article 338 is to be undertaken by Union or state Government on all major policy matters (emphasis supplied by Court) affecting the Scheduled Castes.

11. Mere constitution of the Committee to study a judgment and suggest way-forward to be adopted by the state by itserf would not amount to the State taking on a policy matter, much less a maior poliCV matter affecting the scheduled castes for the petitioner to contend that

4

the State Government was under constitutional obligation to consult the National Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution of India.

12. Having regard to the terms of reference of the Committee constituted by the respondent-State, being only in relation to studying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to suggest way-fonward for its implementation, the same cannot be considered as maior policv matter being undertaken by the State affecting the Scheduled Castes requiring consultation with the National Commission for the petitioner either to feel aggrieved by constitution of such Committee or non-consultation with the National Commission.

13. Further, it is also to be noted that the recommendations or suggestions by the Committee constituted under the Memo are not binding on the State and being only in the nature of suggestion for the petitioner to feel aggrieved by the same.

14. In view of the above, this Court is oF the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, I do so. No order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

SDIN. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

S ON OFFICER

To

o

• 1 . Two CC's to Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad.(OUT)
• z cji,e-cdio dnielKAnrHIx NAVAYAN, Advocate toPUCl

-.'.-*.*--..

3. Two CD CoPies

SA BS

t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011212024

ORDER

WP.No.28542 of 2024

DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.